MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
May 14, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 11:40 a.m., on May 14, 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 Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Ernest E. Adler (Excused)
Senator R. Hal Smith, Vice Chairman (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
Sherry Nesbitt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Howard Skolnik, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Prisons
Kevin Higgins, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General
Beverly Saucedo, Extradition Coordinator, State of Nevada,
Department of Prisons
Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorney's Association
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Randy L. Oaks, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department
Senator James opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 209.
ASSEMBLY BILL 209: Revises provisions relating to use of deadly force to effect arrest. (BDR 14-382)
Assemblyman Wendell Williams testified in support of A.B. 209. Assemblyman Williams advised that the bill is an attempt to institute language parallel to a 1985 United States Supreme Court ruling that dealt with deadly force by law enforcement officers. He advised the case in question is Tennessee vs. Garner which was decided by the supreme court in 1985. He stated this case involved a 14 year old male who was allegedly burglarizing a vacant house at approximately 10:00 p.m. A neighbor called the police, and told them a person approximately age 20 was burglarizing the house. The description of the young man given to the police was completely different than that of the actual person. When the police officers arrived at the scene, the distance between them and the young man did not allow the officers to catch the young man. The young man attempted to jump a fence to flee the scene. One of the officers fired his weapon, striking the young man in the head and killing him. Assemblyman Williams advised that the trial court ruled in favor of the officer. At that time, Tennessee had a law on the books which gave the officer the needed defense for his actions. The United States Supreme Court ruled that it was not necessary to take the life of a person if there was no threat or probable cause to believe that the person would commit another felony or crime.
Assemblyman Williams advised that, as the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) now stand, they fairly well parallel the old Tennessee state law. He stated the main reason for A.B. 209 is not only to amend Nevada's law to codify the supreme court ruling, but to prevent Nevada from the necessity of defending an action similar to the Tennessee incident. He stated the bill, as it passed the assembly, is more restrictive than the supreme court ruling. He stated he had discussed a proposed amendment with all involved, which will more closely codify the supreme court language. Assemblyman Williams also stated he is requesting the committee to repeal subsection 3 of NRS 200.160. He advised this statute states that if a law enforcement officer is in pursuit and pursues a person over 20 miles, the officer may use deadly force. Assemblyman Williams advised this law was enacted in 1911, when he presumed most pursuits were done by horseback. He stated his belief that there would be a problem defending an officer who used this law as a defense.
Senator James asked for and received confirmation that the intent was to amend the bill to eliminate subsection 3 of NRS 200.160 as well as to adopt the other amendment.
Senator James referred to section 3 of NRS 200.140, which is proposed to be amended by A.B. 209. He stated that the issue is being dealt with under the proposed amendment under NRS Chapter 171, which deals with the making of arrests. He advised that Nevada also has a justifiable homicide law which is under NRS Chapter 200 which is also being amended.
He asked, however, if it was appropriate to leave in ". . .lawfully suppressing a riot or preserving the peace." He suggested just referring to Chapter 171 for the force that is allowed. He stated his belief that the term "preserving the peace" is ambiguous.
Assemblyman Williams stated he did not believe anyone would support any type of riot. He stated, however, there has to be some question regarding use of homicide to suppress a riot. He stated he could see this possibly being used for those who commit crimes while involved in a riot. He stated his opinion that the term "preserving the peace" is vague.
Senator James read the language of the proposed amendment:
If necessary to prevent escape an officer may, after giving a warning, if feasible, use deadly force to effect the arrest of a person only if there is probable cause.
He stated the amendment then lists the two criteria. He asked if this is an exclusive provision, dealing with all situations in which the use of deadly force might arise. He stated if the language concerning a riot and preserving the peace is left, an officer could claim deadly force was not being used to make an arrest. The defense would be that the force was used to preserve the peace or quell a riot. He stated in that case, Chapter 171 does not apply. He asked if this situation is addressed by A.B. 209 and if not, should it be addressed.
Assemblyman Williams stated it is not addressed, and that it should be addressed, by the means he indicated.
Senator Jacobsen stated he would want to relate this to the Texas incident. He asked if the bill was trying to cover this in some manner, or would that be outside of the parameter of the bill.
Assemblyman Williams asked for and received confirmation that Senator Jacobsen referred to the Waco incident.
Senator Jacobsen stated that before the four officers were killed in Waco, the situation was different. However, after the officers were killed, there was no question about the intention. He wanted that, in that type of situation, an officer would have the option of using force, under the provisions of A.B. 209.
Assemblyman Williams stated that the proposed amendment to A.B. 209 does provides for the use of force after a life has been taken.
Senator Jacobsen cited another instance in Nevada where a prisoner was shot climbing a fence. In that case it was shown that there were enough officers at the bottom of the fence to apprehend the prisoner. The tower guard could not see the officers, but only the man going over the fence. Senator Jacobsen advised this case went to trial and cost the state over $300,000.
Assemblyman Williams advised that with the current statutes it could cost the state a great deal of money to defend such a case. He stated his opinion that this problem includes the reference to preserving the peace.
Senator Jacobsen stated his question concerned an incarcerated person still having rights. He stated he does not believe in this, but realizes that human life is very important. He asked if the law is always tempered with preserving the peace. In the case of a person climbing a fence, there is no way to determine whether he or she is armed or if injury could be inflicted on someone else.
Assemblyman Williams replied that with the proposed amendment, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person would inflict injury or death, the officer could use deadly force.
Senator James stated this would be a situation involving effecting an arrest of someone escaping. He stated that Chapter 171 only deals with a fleeing person who has committed a crime. This chapter would not apply to other uses of deadly force in other contexts. This would still be addressed by Chapter 200.140. He stated if a law was passed setting forth the standard proposed in A.B. 209, without dealing with Chapter 200.140, the legality of the use of deadly force in other circumstances will not have been addressed. He stated this will also leave in the law the language " . . .in lawfully suppressing a riot or preserving the peace" for which there is no standard in the statute. He asked if this issue should be dealt with in A.B. 209. He stated that removing the 1911 portion of the statute is something with which everyone agrees.
Assemblyman Williams stated he would have no objection.
Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorney's Association, provided oral testimony in support of A.B. 209. He stated he has worked with Assemblyman Williams for approximately 2 months. He advised he had not considered the suppression of a riot or preserving the peace. He stated this may be another entire issue including factors which have not been discussed. He stated he would like to see, with Assemblyman Williams' consent, A.B. 209 and the amendments processed and leave subsection d under the current Chapter 201.40 for future consideration. He stated that in concept he agrees with the proposals, but believes it will take time to determine all that is involved and if case law exists which should be considered.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the bill applies to an individual other than a police officer.
Mr. Graham replied that normally a citizen has the same authority as a police officer in these situations. He stated there are certain rules regarding use of deadly force in defense of yourself or others.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the situation would have to occur on the person's property.
Mr. Graham replied this is not necessarily true. He advised that if a person felt the action of another was wrong, but that would not necessarily make it legally so.
Senator Jacobsen asked for and received confirmation that, A.B. 209 deals with police officers.
Senator James advised he had read the supreme court decision referred to in earlier testimony, and that A.B. 209 appears to effectuate the holding, using the same language and the two contexts under which deadly force may be used. He stated the bill leaves a great amount of discretion to the officer. The statute and case law recognizes that the probable cause determination must be made in the field. He stated that when someone brings a case under this statute, the court will look at the situation from the standpoint of an officer who must make a judgment at the time.
Mr. Graham stated that police procedures are much more strict than what is codified in A.B. 209. He stated the officers of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the rest of the state were using stricter standards even before the event described by Assemblyman Williams occurred. He stated that these officers must constantly be on guard that these standards remain strict and that the officers are restricted in the use of deadly force.
Senator James stated his belief that A.B. 209 is a good bill, as it does codify the constitutional standard. He stated concern regarding leaving the law hanging under the justifiable homicide law, having no standard whatsoever. He stated possibly there is something in case law on when deadly force can be used in that context. He stated he would not want to see something happen in Nevada where a standard had not been enacted in that context and no procedures were in place. He stated his willingness to pass the bill through the Senate Committee on Judiciary and request a trailer bill setting forth the standard dealing with justifiable homicide. He stated he would like to deal with this in the current legislative session.
Mr. Graham stated if that is the committee's desire, and that of Assemblyman Williams, he would request his research staff to determine where that phrase fits within the framework of force.
Mr. Williams asked if Senator James referred to subsection c on line 22.
Senator James replied his reference was to subsection c and former subsection d. He stated possibly subsection c could remain if NRS Chapter 171 was cited. However, former subsection d is not covered by Chapter 171.
Assemblyman Williams stated if it was easier to hold the bill to add the suggested language, he would have no objections.
Senator James stated he did not wish to hold the bill, but did want the understanding that the other matter be pursued diligently.
Senator Jacobsen stated he would like to see the language "if feasible" removed from the first line of the amendment. He asked how someone would determine if a decision was feasible in a split second.
Assemblyman Williams stated he would have no problem with the removal of that phrase.
Senator Jacobsen referred to the language of the amendment, previously quoted by Senator James.
Mr. Graham advised this language was taken from Tennessee vs. Garner.
Senator James advised the supreme court stated, ". . .if, where feasible, some warning has been given."
Senator Jacobsen stated he would prefer to have the word feasible removed.
Senator McGinness stated this seems to go back to the example which Assemblyman Williams gave, where the suspect was too far away for the officer to give a warning. He stated the term "if feasible" would seem to give that officer a defense. He agreed with Senator Jacobsen that if the phrase "if feasible" was removed, it would make the statute much stronger. However, if this would go against the supreme court ruling and jeopardize the statute it can be left in.
Senator James agreed this would make the statute stronger. He advised there is no prohibition against making a more restrictive standard than the constitution allows. He stated, however, that unless Assemblyman Williams has a serious objection, he believed the term needs to remain. The officer needs to be allowed at least some room to make the determination as to whether or not a warning should or could have been given. He stated he could not foresee any situation in which a warning would not be reasonable.
Mr. Graham stated the time factor becomes involved, wherein if a warning is given, the officer could be dead.
Senator James agreed, and stated this question would arise in an unjustifiable killing case. The court would have to determine whether probable cause existed, from the standpoint of the officer involved. The warning would be another thing the court would have to determine. He stated his belief that the court, rather than the legislature, should make that determination in every case.
Assemblyman Williams asked if the court will have to determine the question of feasibility.
Senator James replied that the court will have to determine this, if a warning was not given.
Assemblyman Williams asked if a court would consider a shot in the air a warning if this was the testimony of the officer.
Senator James stated he supposed anything could be a warning. The determination would be whether or not the warning was sufficient. He stated if someone had their back turned and another person made a hand signal, that would not be a warning.
Assemblyman Williams wondered if an officer shot a weapon in the air as a warning to a suspect fleeing, and the officer considered that a warning, and the suspect states he would have stopped had he been warned. If the suspect was fleeing, he or she would have no way of knowing if that shot was a warning, or an attempt to hit him or her. The court would get into a debate regarding what is a proper warning.
Senator James stated he did not believe that issue can be decided by the legislature. He believed the court was saying a warning must be given if possible, and it becomes a question of fact.
Assemblyman Williams agreed that this would be true.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, provided oral testimony in support of A.B. 209 and the proposed amendments. He stated his office has worked in conjunction with Ben Graham and Assemblyman Williams in attempting to work out the language in the bill. He advised the current language in the bill is acceptable to his office. He stated, regarding the warning, there are circumstances in which an officer does not have time to do a warning. If a person is shooting at an officer, there is no time to shout a verbal warning, but only to respond. The officer does not know he will be shot at until it happens. He therefore requested that the words "if feasible" not be removed. He stated the average reaction time from being shot at is 1.7 seconds. There is no way to give a warning in 1.7 seconds. Mr. Nadeau stated, regarding suppressing a riot or preserving the peace, he believed there is enough questions so that it should be dealt with in a separate bill. He offered his assistance to work on language in this regard.
Senator James asked if the Washoe County Sheriff's Office also had a more restrictive policy than that in the bill.
Mr. Nadeau replied that they do. He advised that generally, warning shots are not acceptable and from his experience a suspect will flee if this is done. It does not really function as a warning.
Senator James asked for and received confirmation that Mr. Nadeau does not see A.B. 209 as a substantial impediment to the department's law enforcement activities.
Senator Jacobsen asked what would be feasible circumstances, and upon what would the decision be based.
Mr. Nadeau replied if someone were to draw down on a police officer, no shots have been fired, and the officer tells the person to drop the gun or the officer will have to shoot. He advised these would all be situations in which a time aspect is involved. He stated the same would apply if someone is running with a gun. The officer might only have time to say one or two words as a warning.
Senator Jacobsen asked what the current policies are which direct officers in Mr. Nadeau's department.
Mr. Nadeau advised it is based on the circumstances. If the officer has time to give a warning, one is issued.
Randy L. Oaks, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified in support of A.B. 209 and the proposed amendment. He stated that he does not view the provisions of the bill as being an impediment to law enforcement procedures currently in effect in his department. He advised that the policy of the department is more restrictive than that of the bill and amendment. He stated his department's policy does not permit warning shots to be fired.
Senator James confirmed that there was no further testimony on A.B. 209, and closed the hearing.
The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 94.
ASSEMBLY BILL 94: Revises provisions governing profitability of programs for employment of offenders. (BDR 16-1001)
Mr. Howard Skolnik, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Prisons, provided oral testimony in support of A.B. 94. He stated this bill clarifies language regarding the profitability of the prison industries' program. He advised current language in the statute requires that each prison industry operation be measured on its own merits. He stated this means that new programs violate the law as soon they are started. As is true of almost any business, they lose money in the first year or two of operation. He advised A.B. 94 will change the statute to authorize an aggregate of overall programs to be profitable, allowing the support of start up of new programs. He stated the bill also requires a review at the end of a 3 year period by the Prison Industry Advisory Board. If a program does not reach profitability within that time, recommendations will be made to the director regarding the feasibility of continuing the program.
Senator Titus asked if there is not a legislative oversight committee which deals with prison industries.
Mr. Skolnik replied that the Prison Industry Advisory Board is a board appointed by the interim finance committee of the legislature.
Senator Titus asked for and received confirmation that the board approves of A.B. 94.
Senator Jacobsen stated he would not want to eliminate the ability to do away with an industry if it becomes apparent right away that it is not going to work.
Mr. Skolnik advised that A.B. 94 would not preclude the closing of an industry. He stated the existing language states that if a program is not making money it is illegal. The bill would allow the department to stop violating the law each time a program is started.
Senator James confirmed there was no further testimony on A.B. 94, and closed the hearing.
The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 465.
ASSEMBLY BILL 465: Requires payment of restitution for expenses related to extradition. (BDR 14-1310)
Kevin Higgins, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, provided oral testimony in support of A.B. 465. He advised A.B. 465 is designed to do two things, one of which is to provide the Attorney General's Office control over extradition costs. NRS 179.225 currently provides no discretion as to which extraditions are paid for by the Attorney General's Office. A.B. 465 would allow adoption of regulations in that regard. Mr. Higgins advised that, secondly, the bill would allow the courts, the department of parole and probation, and the prisons to collect extradition costs from people who are sentenced and those on probation and parole. He advised a recent supreme court decision, set forth in the fiscal note for A.B. 465, states that the sentencing court has no authority to collect extradition costs, and therefore denied attempts to do so. Mr. Higgins stated that because these costs are spread in so many different places, the bill touches on several legislative provisions. He reviewed the sections of the bill and the provisions of each. Mr. Higgins stated there is no expectation that all costs will be collected, however it is possible to collect costs from some inmates. He advised the statute also provides that upon release from prison, any money a prisoner owes for extradition becomes a civil liability.
Senator James advised that there are approximately seven bills currently in the legislature which will make prisoners pay for various costs, and agreed this should be done. He stated, however, that an attempt has been made to be certain that payments to prisoners' families for child support, payments to victims of crimes come before payments made to reimburse the state for incarceration costs. He advised that the bill does not appear to provide that extradition costs come after costs which the legislature has attempted to make priorities. He asked if the bill attempts in any way to do this.
Mr. Higgins replied that the language includes the term "if practicable," regarding making restitution payments. He stated the intent of the bill is not to take the only money a person has, rather than providing for their family. He advised, however, that at present there is no statutory authority to attempt to collect these costs.
Senator James advised he had no problem with this. He stated bills dealing with reimbursement for incarceration costs have been passed out of the Senate Committee on Judiciary. He stated his desire to have something in the statutes indicating priority of payments, particularly in view of the bill creating a civil liability.
Mr. Higgins advised that, as a practical matter, if someone is not making enough money to feed their family there is no point in attempting to collect a civil judgment against them.
Senator James asked if Mr. Higgins had been present at committee meetings in which other bills involving payment of costs of incarceration have been heard.
Mr. Higgins stated that he had been present for some of the hearings.
Senator James advised that in those other cases, the bills were passed, but with amendments to provide that repayment of costs is a lessor priority than payments to victims of crimes and payments of support to family members.
Mr. Higgins stated that he did not believe his department would have a problem with this type of amendment to A.B. 94. He did want the committee to understand that these are not costs which are involuntarily incurred. The costs are incurred because the
person fights the system and refuses to waive extradition. He agreed to submit amending language, prioritizing these payments.
Beverly Saucedo, Extradition Coordinator, State of Nevada, Department of Prisons, provided oral testimony in support of A.B. 94. She stated that her department collects restitution from the department of parole and probation on parolees and probationers. She advised that in 1992, $670,000 was expended, of which $50,000 was collected, and so far in 1993, approximately $40,000 had been collected. She stated she had recently received a phone call from a gentleman who had moved to California and wishes to set up a payment plan to repay extradition costs.
Senator Jacobsen asked what procedure is followed in extraditing a person. He also asked if the least expensive means of transportation is used, and how the determination regarding method of transportation is made.
Ms. Saucedo replied the department is currently attempting to develop stricter rules and regulations which law enforcement agencies must follow in bringing back fugitives. She advised that currently law enforcement determines the route to be taken. Usually commercial airlines are used to transport prisoners, but if a cheaper rate is available from a transportation company, that will be used. Her department attempts to stress that reservations are made far enough in advance to get the best fares. She stated that if a time limit is given for picking up the person, no choice is available.
Senator Jacobsen asked if there is ever an occasion in which more than one person is transported at one time.
Ms. Saucedo replied that if two fugitives are being brought at the same time, her department pays for three agents to pick them up. Currently, for security purposes, if one fugitive is being brought back, the costs for two agents are paid.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the agents are employed by the department of prisons.
Ms. Saucedo advised that the agents are from the law enforcement agencies. The agency pays for the transportation, and is reimbursed by the department of prisons. She stated hotels, meals and travel are paid.
Mr. Higgins advised this is also part of the problem. Some airlines will not allow a person to be handcuffed, nor the carrying of weapons by the officers. In these cases, the cheaper routing is out of the question.
Senator James confirmed there was no further testimony on A.B. 465, and closed the hearing.
The hearing was reopened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 209. Senator James confirmed that members of the committee were familiar with the proposed amendments. He also advised there is a conflict amendment, as A.B. 209 amends the statute previously amended stating a person need not be arrested on a misdemeanor warrant.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 209.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The hearing was reopened on A.B. 94.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 94.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The hearing was reopened on A.B. 465. Senator James briefly reviewed the proposed amendment, regarding a priority provision.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 465.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator James advised that the assembly has amended 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 stated the amendment changes the language "or a public officer or employee" to "a public officer or a public employee." He reviewed other similar portions of the amendment and advised this is now more consistent with the usage in the other parts of the statute.
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO CONCUR IN THE AMENDMENT TO S.B. 293.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator James advised the committee had received from Senator Glomb, a request to request a bill draft regarding the way in which the parole board conducts hearings. The bill would amend the constitution of the board. He also advised that Senator Glomb had provided extensive research concerning national standards regarding parole boards.
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT REQUEST REGARDING THE CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURES OF THE PAROLE BOARD OF THE STATE OF NEVADA.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator James advised that the committee had received a request to introduce Bill Draft Request (BDR) 8-1297, and briefly described the BDR.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 8-1297.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator James advised that the committee had received a request for committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 2-1851, and briefly described the BDR.
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 2-1851.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator James advised the committee had received a request for committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 5-1672, and briefly described the BDR.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 5-1672.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator James proposed that the committee request a bill draft be drafted to amend the statutes setting forth the standard for use of deadly force in the context under NRS 200.140.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT REQUEST REGARDING AMENDMENT OF NRS 200.140.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator James confirmed there was no further business to come before the committee, and adjourned the meeting at 12:35 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Nesbitt,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Judiciary
May 14, 1993
Page 1