MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
April 7, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, April 7, 1993, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator R. Hal Smith, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dina Titus *
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Ernest E. Adler
* Committee member only present for a portion of the meeting.
This is noted in the body of the minutes.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
Sherry Nesbitt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Larry G. Bettis, Deputy City Attorney, City of Las Vegas
Fran Zito, Member, Nevada Association of Social Workers
Joan Zadny, Lobbyist, First Vice President Nevada Parent Teachers Association
Patricia Justice, Attorney, Member, Nevada Attorneys for
Criminal Justice
Sandra L. Heverly, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Clark County Chapter
Laurel A. Stadler, Lobbyist, Mothers Against
Drunk Driving, Lyon County
Lenore Hutchins, Member, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Stephen R. Tanner, Member of the Public
Paul McGratti, Member of the Public
Kevin Higgins, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada,
Office of the Attorney General
Lieutenant James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Paul B. McGrath, Carson City Sheriff's Department
John M. Cummings, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada State Education Association,
Roberta "Bobbie" Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby, National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter
Senator James opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 228.
ASSEMBLY BILL 228: Allows all prosecuting attorneys to issue subpoenas for witnesses. (BDR 14-864)
Larry G. Bettis, Deputy City Attorney, City of Las Vegas, provided oral testimony in support of A.B. 228. He advised currently, only the district attorneys offices have authority to issue subpoenas for witnesses in prosecution of criminal matters. He stated those primarily affected by A.B. 228 would be the city attorney's offices throughout the state, and the attorney general's office. He stated the City of Las Vegas presently requires the issuance of approximately 1,000 witness subpoenas per month. The agency requiring the subpoena must move the court for the issuance. He advised the problem lies in the fact that, because of the volume of cases being handled at the municipal court level, approximately 4 to 5 days are required to issue the subpoenas. Meanwhile, the agencies may not be able to contact their witnesses in a timely manner. He explained the procedure by which a court issues a subpoena.
Senator Jacobsen asked if this only relates to grand juries.
Mr. Bettis replied this would relate to any matter involving a criminal prosecution, all indictments, criminal compliance, or criminal affirmations. This would apply in cases from misdemeanors to felonies.
Senator Jacobsen stated the bill said on lines 7 and 8 ". . .in support of the prosecution or whom the grand jury may direct to appear before it, . . ."
Mr. Bettis referred to lines 10 through 12 of the bill, which refers to the other types of proceedings.
Senator James confirmed there were no other questions from the committee, or other testimony on A.B. 228. The hearing was closed on A.B. 228.
The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 280.
ASSEMBLY BILL 280: Revises provisions for effecting arrests during night. (BDR 14-150)
Paul B. McGrath, Lobbyist, Carson City Sheriff's Department, presented oral testimony. He stated that Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 171.136 was modified during the 1991 legislative session. He advised this modification authorized the serving of warrants after 7:00 p.m., but two warrants were required. He stated this has hindered law enforcement with respect to the ability to serve warrants after the 7:00 p.m. deadline. A.B. 280 would basically change the statute back to the way it was previously. He stated that one warrant would then be sufficient to bring someone into custody, if that warrant is outstanding.
Senator Adler asked why the statute was originally changed.
Mr. Bettis stated he did not attend the committee meetings in the previous session. However, he believed that one of the law enforcement representatives was involved in an altercation with committee members, and the result was the present statute.
Senator Adler stated Mr. Bettis' recollection was fairly accurate. He advised the concern of that committee was that law enforcement would have the authority to serve warrants in the middle of night, and therefore the two-warrant system was adopted.
Lieutenant James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, presented oral testimony. He concurred there had been some conflict with regard to the bill presented in the 1991 legislative session. He advised there are protections within A.B. 280 to prevent situations such as those mentioned by Senator Adler. Lieutenant Nadeau related the protection provisions. He stated his organization has concerns regarding sections f and g of A.B. 280. He gave the example of a person being booked into jail, and that person having an outstanding misdemeanor warrant which is not endorsed for night service. He advised if that person is released on bail for the offense on which he or she was arrested, his department must find the person during the day to execute the outstanding warrant. He further advised that if someone turned themselves in after 7:00 p.m. on a warrant not endorsed for night service, that person could not be taken into custody.
Mr. McGrath advised that Carson City has a warrant officer who works at night. He stated his department, as a courtesy, calls people who have outstanding warrants and advises the people they might want to come into the station. He advised the current statute has hindered his department because if they do not have the two warrants required, they cannot even make that contact.
Senator Jacobsen asked if a person who is arrested could not be held for 24 hours.
Mr. McGrath advised the person is entitled to bail, depending on the charge for which they are arrested. He stated if anyone is arrested on any charge, unless it is a non-bailable charge, they have the ability to bail out. He further stated his department does not have the power to detain anyone without a criminal charge, probable cause to arrest, or a warrant. He stated a person could not arbitrarily be held for a period of time pending some other type of investigation.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the probable cause requirement applies to juveniles.
Mr. Nadeau replied it does apply to juveniles as well.
Senator James, referring to line f of A.B. 280, asked how a person already in custody could be arrested.
Lieutenant Nadeau advised this is a paperwork process. He explained the name of anyone booked into a jail is automatically run through the Nevada criminal justice information system. He advised if it is determined at that time that there is another warrant outstanding, the person is booked on the additional charge.
Senator McGinness asked if sections f and g in A.B. 280 applied only to misdemeanors.
Mr. McGrath stated these sections apply to any type of misdemeanor warrant, and gave examples. He stated that under the present law, warrants for felonies can be acted upon at any time.
Senator James confirmed there was no further testimony on A.B. 280 and closed the hearing.
The hearing was opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 192.
SENATE BILL 192: Provides enhanced penalty for crimes committed against minors. (BDR 15-1675)
Senator James advised he was the prime sponsor of S.B. 192, and that the bill had also been heard in Las Vegas. He advised the intent of S.B. 192 is to address the growing problem of child abuse and crimes where victims are children. He advised many things have been done in the past resulting in portions of the statutes providing protection of children and early intervention. However, statistics show that crimes involving children are on the rise. He gave examples of the many instances of crimes against and involving children which are prevalent in today's society. He related details of a case involving his friend whose daughter was abducted in a mall in Las Vegas. He stated it took his friend and two security guards to get the child back. He believed there is a perception in the community that children are not safe on the streets. He believed S.B. 192 was one way of attempting to address the problem. He explained that S.B. 192 enhances the penalties on crimes committed against children.
Senator James advised that previous testimony before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and several people have contacted him in the time between the hearings. He advised these people believe enhancements will not deter offenders from committing these acts, and agreed there may be some truth in that belief. He stated, however, that the state of Nevada has enhanced the penalties for other types of crimes. He enumerated those crimes. He stated not all offenses have been addressed in this way. He advised the penalty for manslaughter is the same regardless of whether the victim is a child. He advised S.B. 192 deals with the most defenseless victims of crime.
Joan Zadny, Lobbyist, First Vice President, Nevada State Parent Teachers Association (Nevada PTA), provided oral testimony in support of S.B. 192. Ms. Zadny a provided resolution enacted by the Nevada PTA entitled "Crimes Against Children," which recommends the Nevada Legislature pass legislation to increase penalties against persons committing violent acts against children. (A copy of the resolution is attached as Exhibit C.)
Senator James asked if the National Parent Teachers Association had a resolution such as the one Ms. Zadny presented.
Ms. Zadny advised this resolution was passed at the convention of Nevada PTA in 1992.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the PTA does anything to perpetuate the safety of children in the schools.
Ms. Zadny replied that in Nevada the PTA has several programs across the state which attempt to ensure the safety of children. She advised there has an emphasis placed on the safety of children in getting to and from school.
Senator James advised that at the first hearing, Richard Wright, a representative of the defense trial lawyers testified, in opposition to S.B. 192. Mr. Wright stated that most crimes against children were already enhanced. Senator James advised he had requested that Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst, research every crime in Nevada to determine what crimes are and are not enhanced if a child is a victim.
Mr. Neilander presented oral testimony regarding the memorandum he had written at Senator James' request. A copy of the memorandum is attached as Exhibit D. He explained how the memorandum was organized, and explained the categories, the details of the crimes involved, and the penalties for the crimes. He advised that certain types of assault and battery do not amount to child abuse.
Senator James asked what those types would be.
Mr. Neilander replied this would apply in conditions where, under the child abuse statute, the conduct had been determined to be assault or battery, but is not severe enough under the child abuse law to be treated as abuse.
Senator James asked to confirm, if first degree kidnapping had been charged, but bodily harm was not present, it would not be an enhanced penalty.
Mr. Neilander confirmed this was correct. He stated involvement of a child makes kidnapping a first degree offense, however the sentencing is dependent upon whether or not the victim suffered extensive bodily harm, not whether or not the victim was a child. He advised where no extensive bodily harm exists, the penalty is not less than 5 years imprisonment, and under S.B. 192 the penalty would be not less than 10 years imprisonment.
Senator James asked if a person receiving a 5-year prison sentence normally serves the 5 years.
Mr. Neilander replied normally the sentencing for felonies is a range, for example 1 to 10 years. However, in kidnapping and certain other crimes, there is a minimum time served. In the case of kidnapping, it would be 5 years. He advised credit is given for good time served, and eligibility for parole occurs after one-third of the time is served. He stated in some crimes, parole is not an available option.
Senator James asked if parole was available on kidnapping.
Mr. Neilander said he would check the statute and advise Senator James regarding kidnapping specifically.
Senator James asked, if S.B. 192 was left in its current form, would it double the minimum sentence.
Mr. Neilander replied affirmatively, and that it would also double the maximum sentence.
Senator James asked Senator Titus and Senator McGinness to serve on a subcommittee, which he will chair, to review the statutes and make a policy decision on which crimes will be specifically referred to in an amendment to S.B. 192.
Senator Adler asked if a fiscal note should be requested.
Mr. Neilander advised the bill affects only the prison term, and does not create any new crimes. He stated a fiscal note had been prepared, which states there will be a fiscal impact, but the amount is unknown. It would depend on how many people go to prison.
Senator James stated he was aware of the prison overcrowding issues. He advised this was one reason the committee was reviewing the bill and the broad-brush it creates. He stated if the ability to enhance penalties is lost because of the fiscal impact, at least the committee has attempted to pass legislation to help protect children.
Senator Adler advised he had attended a seminar on child abuse. He advised the moderator, a neurosurgeon, had stated most deaths caused from child abuse were a result of lack of funding for early intervention. The doctor stated there was insufficient money to get the children out of the home early enough, for prenatal care, and for eduction for parents concerning violence toward their own children. Senator Adler was concerned that resources were not being directed to prevention.
Senator James agreed that S.B. 192 was not necessarily the only way to deal with the problem. He agreed in many cases the abuse is perpetrated by the custodian, parent, or guardian of the child. He recalled the concern of Jan Allison, Nevada Legal Services, in the first hearing on S.B. 192. Ms. Allison advised many times the person who commits the abuse is also providing for the child. Senator James reiterated that S.B. 192 also addresses crimes committed against children by strangers.
John M. Cummings, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada State Education Association, provided oral testimony. He stated that incarceration does not help child abusers. He referred, as an example, to the case of Wesley Dodd, in the state of Washington. He stated Mr. Dodd was executed a few months ago. Mr. Dodd received the death penalty for having killed five children after abusing and molesting them. Mr. Cummings read an except from the January 11, 1993 issue of Time magazine, regarding this case. The article related the many times Mr. Dodd was convicted and released for child molestation. The article quoted Mr. Dodd as saying, "Each time I enter treatment I continue to molest children. I like molesting children and did what I had to do so I could continue molesting." Mr. Cummings believed that everyone wants their child to be able to walk through a mall, play in their yard, or walk to school, and be safe. He advised that the Washington legislature has enacted a law requiring a convicted sex offender to register with police whenever they move, that authorities must let the community know about the felon in their midst, and that the state is allowed to incarcerate repeat offenders after they had served their sentences if they are thought to still pose a threat. Mr. Cummings stated the last portion of this law has been challenged in court as unconstitutional. He stated, however, the first two aspects of the law are important. He believed if Nevada required sex offenders to register, and have the authorities notify the community these offenders are in their midst, that this is the least the legislature should do.
Senator James believed, after conferring with law enforcement lobbyists, that ex-felon registration is currently on a county-to-county basis. However, Mr. Cummings' suggestion would be on a statewide basis, which would be more comprehensive.
Senator Adler agreed with Mr. Cummings' testimony, and related
similar experiences he had while he was a criminal deputy for the Attorney General's Office. Senator Adler also advised that Nevada is stricter than other states in sentencing child molesters, and the offender must have a letter from a psycologist stating he or she is not a threat to the community before being granted probation.
Sandra L. Heverly, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Clark County Chapter, provided oral testimony in support of S.B. 192. Ms. Heverly stated MADD believes the additional enhancement in the bill will send a significant message. She stated the natural death of a child is extremely traumatic to parents, but when that child is lost in a violent manner, many times parents never recover. She agreed with the saying that when an elder is taken, we lose a piece of our past, and also believes when a child is killed and taken from us, we lose a piece of our future. She stated MADD agrees with Mr. Cummings' testimony that children should be able to play and be in public places without fear of being abducted or run down. She related several instances in which children have been victims of drunken drivers. She related a specific instance of a child who was killed while crossing the street. The child was dragged 150 feet by the car, and the driver left the scene. The driver was charged the next day with felony reckless driving and felony leaving the scene. Ms. Heverly believed in this type of situation, an additional enhancement would be warranted.
Ms. Heverly advised the Driving Under the Influence (DUI) law currently carries an enhancement. However, this law only addresses a situation where a person under the age of 18 years is riding with someone under the influence of alcohol, there will be an additional enhancement. The specifics are left up to the discretion of the judge. She further stated that there exists no additional enhancement if a child is killed or injured by a drunk driver.
Lenore Hutchins, Member, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, provided oral testimony in support of S.B. 192. She stated her best friend's 19 year-old daughter was killed in March by a drinking driver. She believed no matter what the age, our children must be protected.
Senator James asked for and received confirmation that the statute referred to by Ms. Heverly states that a child riding with a drinking driver is an overriding factor.
Laurel A. Stadler, Member, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter, provided testimony in support of S.B. 192. She advised the victims MADD seeks to protect are picked at random by drunk drivers and the driver does not know if he is going to kill an adult or a child. She believed the additional enhancement would serve as a general deterrent to the driver, and that any deterrent will help to eliminate the problem.
Steve R. Tanner, Member of the Public, provided oral testimony in support of S.B. 192. He told the committee about the loss of his 20 year-old daughter to a drunk driver. He stated, to lose a child of any age is horrible, but believed it would be even more horrible if the child was under 18 years of age. He stated we protect our elderly, who are our past and present, but our children are our future.
Senator James stated crimes involving children being injured or killed as a result of drinking drivers will be considered as part of the intent of S.B. 192.
Roberta "Bobbie" Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby, National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter, provided testimony in support of S.B. 192. She thanked Senator James for bringing this issue forward and for his comments, which she felt echo the sentiments of many parent's and women's groups. She advised the Nevada Women's Lobby is concerned about the welfare of children who, it seems, are in more danger every year. She believed parents can no longer feel comfortable about their children's safety, no matter the circumstances or time of day. She related incidents illustrating how she and her children were raised, and how, because of fear of untoward acts, children are raised today. These incidents showed that no longer can children walk or play alone without fear. Ms. Gang agreed with Senator Adler that preventive programs are needed. She believed until those programs are in place, she believed the punishment of people committing crimes against children must be increased. She advised the Nevada Women's Lobby strongly supports S.B. 192 and feels the bill is very important, as it expresses the public's outrage regarding crimes committed against defenseless children.
Fran Zito, Member, Nevada Association of Social Workers, provided oral testimony in support of S.B. 192. She advised she is the only social worker in the state of Nevada licensed to practice in schools. She works with juvenile probation and child protective services. She advised that she assists in attempting to resolve abuse cases which will never reach the media. She stated the reason for this is children do not have the protection from their parents to even be heard. She advised the children feel that if there was stronger punishment, possibly their parents would not commit these crimes against them. She supported Senator Adler's position in creating preventative programs, which she considered vital. She believed that if an adult had a vision of what it would be like to spend 2 to 40 years in prison rather than 1 to 20 years, that person might take time to think about what they were doing, and not commit the act. She believed any attempt to inhibit this behavior is needed.
Senator Adler advised he also supports the concept of S.B. 192. He felt, however, the legislature needs to take a hard look at putting no money into preventative measures to protect children, very little money into police forces to be around schools, and other preventative measures. He did not believe S.B. 192 was a deterrent to these crimes, but supports the bill believing the offenders should spend more time in prison for the crimes committed.
Ms. Zito advised that she had been told by offenders that they were not afraid to commit these acts because they knew they would not be incarcerated for a long period of time. These people had been jail before and felt one more year was no big deal.
Senator James reminded the committee that when S.B. 192 was heard in Las Vegas, testimony was provided stating that people committing these crimes repeat offend, therefore creating a feeling of futility in enhancing the penalties. He agreed with Senator Adler and stated that possibly the answer is isolation and not rehabilitation. He stated possibly the prison system would not rehabilitate these offenders, but there are so many children to be protected, something has to be done.
Senator Adler stated the repeat offenders are aware of the Nevada habitual criminal statute. He advised that under the statute, a life sentence is imposed, and yet the offenders continue to commit the crimes. He would like to see the children removed from the situation where they will potentially be injured.
Ms. Gang recalled the hearing in Las Vegas produced some very graphic testimony regarding the crimes and punishments, and the resultant short time in prison. She wondered why the punishment was not matching the crime, which she felt S.B. 192 would accomplish.
Patricia Justice, Attorney, Member, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, provided oral testimony in opposition to S.B. 192. She advised that as a public defender she works mainly with felony crimes. She stated she handles an average 344 preliminary hearings per year. She stated Nevada judges are not soft on crime, and when the victim is a juvenile, they automatically enhance the penalty. She believed the enactment of S.B. 192 would take away some of the judges' discretion by forcing an automatic enhancement. She advised that in Nevada, a juvenile can be certified to be an adult. She stated this bill could involve, for example, two 17-year old gang members in a dispute, one certified as an adult. The one certified would face the adult penalty plus the enhancement because the other person in the fight was under 18-years of age. She advised S.B. 192 not only takes care of a person who cold heartedly molests a child, it takes care of any person committing a crime if the victim in under 18-years of age. She believed the Nevada PTA has a very important role in this issue. She stated that teachers have an inordinate role, and should know that they are free to write to a judge, to advise the impact of child abuse involving one of their students. She stated the judge can then take into consideration the teacher's testimony regarding the effect on the child. She stated the Nevada PTA can get involved immediately by encouraging teachers to exercise this right. She advised a pre-sentence investigation report is done on every person in Nevada who is found guilty or pleads guilty of a gross misdemeanor or a felony. She stated all information received is incorporated in this report, and the report goes directly to the judge.
Ms. Justice related offenses which currently carry enhanced penalties. She was not sure that the enhancements proposed in S.B. 192 are an answer to the problem. She respected Senator Adler's approach. She wondered if there is a way that people receiving welfare or aid to dependent children could be required to attend parenting class as a condition of receiving the assistance. She advised the people committing these crimes do not think about what the sentence will be. She related several cases in which she had been involved, which supported this statement. She advised the penalty in Nevada for child molestation is life imprisonment, and the offender cannot be released until a certain number of years are served. She related similar statutes showing the requirements for application for parole.
Ms. Justice agreed it is terrible when a child is injured by a drunk driver and empathized with the representatives from MADD. She felt, however, there are ways, other than enhanced penalties, to handle the problem. She agreed with Senator James that the bill needs some work before it would be a viable solution to the problems it addresses.
Senator Adler agreed that some penalties need to be enhanced. He also agreed with Ms. Justice that Nevada judges sentence harder than California judges on crimes against juveniles.
Senator James stated he would like to have a compilation of statistics regarding how Nevada compares in time of incarceration for these crimes.
Senator Adler advised statistics are not available for time served for all crimes against children. He advised, however, for crimes specific as to children, statistics are available.
Ms. Justice advised her office is able to generate the sentence individuals had received for specific crimes.
Senator James requested that Ms. Justice provide the committee with this information.
Senator James asked Ms. Justice if she did not agree that punishment has justifications other than deterrent effect.
Ms. Justice stated that she does agree. She also stated, as a public defender, she does not see much rehabilitation as a punishment angle.
Senator James stated he would ask the subcommittee to consider all of these points, and particularly to concentrate on seeing that the offender serves the entire sentence imposed.
Ms. Justice advised Nevada's definition of kidnapping is any movement of a person. She advised, therefore, if any custodial person is involved with abuse of a child, any movement of that child could be considered kidnapping.
Senator James asked if most criminal offenders are involved in plea bargaining. He asked if this would not be a consideration where long sentences are involved. He believed this would present something to work from when the offender is trying to plead down to a lesser charge.
Ms. Justice stated most of the cases she takes to a jury trial involve molesting children. She said because of long penalties involved, and because of the rage of citizens serving on juries, it is easy to convict people for long term sentences. She stated there is a huge steam rolling effect in the public where these types of charges are involved. She reiterated that the Nevada judges also want to administer maximum sentences for these crimes.
Senator James confirmed there was no further testimony on S.B. 192. He advised the subcommittee would report back to the Senate Committee on Judiciary within the next 2 weeks, at which time final action on the bill would take place.
Senator James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 88.
SENATE BILL 88: Provides governmental immunity for torts arising out of uninvited use of unimproved public land. (BDR 3-820)
Senator James advised he had been notified that the City of Reno, who sponsored S.B. 88 does not wish to pursue the bill.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 88.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 293.
SENATE BILL 293: Prohibits denial of attorney's fees and costs in civil action solely because prevailing party is state, local government or public officer or employee. (BDR 2-505)
Senator James briefly described the bill. He advised the Senate Committee on Judiciary was concerned with lines 14 through 17, which define the standard to be used by the court in awarding attorney's fees. He stated the intention of Brian Hutchins, a proponent, was to include in S.B. 293 the standard used in the federal courts, where they review the rates on various factors. He advised prevailing rates in the community is only one of those factors. The proposed amendment to S.B. 293 states the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs, which is the standard for every litigant. He advised the intention of the committee that the factors outlined by Brian Hutchins, be utilized by the courts in determining attorney's fees. He stated this standard arises from the case of Coleman v. Block, 589 F. Supp. 1411. Senator James enumerated the items to be considered when determining these fees.
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 293.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 321.
SENATE BILL 321: Requires director of department of prisons to establish by regulation reasonable deduction from money credited to account of offender to repay certain costs. (BDR 16-499)
Senator James briefly described the bill. He stated the concern was that these charges could get out of hand. He advised the proponents agree with the proposed amendment.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 321.
SENATOR SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James reopened the hearing on A.B. 228.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 228.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James reopened the hearing on A.B. 280.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 280.
SENATOR SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James advised the Senate Committee on Judiciary had a request for a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) C-1907. He stated the BDR request proposes to amend the Nevada constitution to create an intermediate appellate court.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR C-1907.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Senator James confirmed there was no further business to come before the committee. The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Nesbitt,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Judiciary
April 7, 1993
Page 1