The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, February 3, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Jan Evans, Assembly District 30

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Anderson announced a quorum was present. He reminded the audience, especially those wishing to testify, to sign in on the attendance roster and before speaking, to turn on their microphones.

Chairman Anderson stated the first order of business before the committee would be a presentation by Mr. Ben Graham, Chief Deputy District Attorney of Clark County and a legislative representative for the Nevada District Attorney’s Association. Chairman Anderson clarified Mr. Graham would be appearing at the request of the Chair and not as a representative for his clients.

Mr. Graham began his presentation by providing a brief overview of the "Bill of Rights" (Exhibit C). Continuing his presentation, he reviewed an additional handout to the committee, titled "Criminal Law Jurisdiction and Procedure" (Exhibit D), which explained basic criminal procedure and defined the classifications of crimes, courts, and court boundaries.

Assemblyman Carpenter questioned the type of cases brought before a grand jury. Mr. Graham responded the most significant cases dealt with sensitive issues involving young people. He explained, with a grand jury a young victim would not be subject to cross-examination or public inquiry, as they would in a preliminary hearing. Other types of cases would be those with ongoing investigations and those with many out-of-state witnesses. Mr. Graham stated, overall, it was left to the discretion of the district attorney.

Mr. Carpenter agreed a grand jury would be beneficial when young children were involved, but still expressed concern with the potential for abuse of grand juries. Mr. Graham said his concerns were valid.

In response to Mr. Collins’ request to elaborate on the correlation between multiple charges and plea bargaining, Mr. Graham explained "stacking of charges." He offered that an individual could be charged with multiple offenses. In this situation, it would be possible to drop some of the charges, if a person would plea to one. He noted that action was a policy decision and could also be abused in some situations.

There being no further questions from the committee, Chairman Anderson introduced Karen Kavanau, Director of Administrative Office of the Courts.

Ms. Kavanau proceeded to give an overview of the structure and organization of the state court system, including the Supreme Court, District Courts, Justice Courts and Municipal Courts. Upon review of the structure of the Supreme Court, she called attention to three initiatives the court had undertaken; the creation of an intermediate appellate court, a uniform system for judicial records, and construction of the Clark County Regional Justice Center. Ms. Kavanau’s written presentation was attached as Exhibit E.

Referring to Ms. Kavanau’s request that the 1999 legislature not pass Senate Joint Resolution 14 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, which provided for the creation of the intermediate appellate court and was passed by the 1997 legislature, Chairman Anderson requested clarification of the Court’s intention. Ms. Kavanau explained they would be submitting a new resolution during session to allow the court more time to evaluate the impact of the expansion to seven judges.

Assemblyman Brower queried whether it was the court’s belief that the expansion to seven justices precluded the need for an intermediate court. Ms. Kavanau clarified the court felt the intermediate court was a long-term solution for dealing with the backlog, while the addition of two justices was a short-term solution. She expressed the court’s hope that the panel system would allow it to more aggressively attack the backlog and reiterated that one was not to replace the other.

Chairman Anderson noted in the past, the State of Nevada had a larger backlog of cases than any other state and that had prompted use of the panel system and the contemplation of the intermediate appellate court.

Mr. Carpenter expressed support for delaying creation of the intermediate appellate court in order to assess the impact of the addition of two justices.

Moving to the next order of business, Chairman Anderson introduced Assemblywoman Jan Evans, Assembly District 30 and Chairwoman of the Legislative Commission’s Interim Subcommittee to Study the System of Juvenile Justice in Nevada, which was passed as Assembly Concurrent Resolution 57 of the Sixty-Ninth Session.

Ms. Evans introduced Larry L. Peri, Senior Program Analyst of the Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Steven A. Shaw, Administrator of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), and Larry D. Carter, Juvenile Justice Commission. She stated they would be available to answer any questions from the committee.

Relating the history of the subcommittee, Ms. Evans explained that 2 years ago, it was brought to the legislature’s attention by Judge Gerald Hardcastle from Clark County and Judge Charles McGee from Washoe County that the detention facilities in both counties were seriously overcrowded leading to double bunking, triple bunking, and juveniles on mattresses in the hallways. Fortunately, the legislature was able to take action through the money committees with additional appropriations.

Ms. Evans recognized Senator Valerie Wiener for initiating the interim study on juvenile justice, the hard work of all the subcommittee members, and the local and state agencies that had participated in the discussions. Due to the fact that a comprehensive study had not occurred in the field of juvenile justice for so long and the subcommittee was not interested in an easy and quick solution, she acknowledged that would be the first of several interim studies. Not only did they want to focus on juvenile justice in terms of the system, intervention, sanctions, placement, and the facilities, but they felt it would be necessary to study the high correlates of juvenile delinquency; abuse, neglect, truancy, violence in the schools, substance abuse, health and poverty issues. Ms. Evans stressed "the whole state and local relationship must be rethought and must be restructured and that is not going to happen quickly."

Ms. Evans acknowledged the support the subcommittee received from the National Conference of State Legislatures, pointing out that enabled them to seek the assistance of a juvenile justice consultant, Dr. James C. "Buddy" Howell. With his help, the subcommittee put together a long-term and phased-in program for juvenile justice reform. In addition to Dr. Howell, they were aided by David F. Bash, III, Chief, Youth Parole; Bob Hatfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties; and Judge Deborah Schumacher, Judicial District Two, Washoe County. Ms. Evans noted only two bill drafts stemmed from this comprehensive review because the study had not concluded.

Mr. Larry Peri started his summation of the 15 recommendations developed by the subcommittee (Exhibit F), informing the committee that a detailed account could be found within the report (Exhibit G).

Recommendations one through four are as follows:

1. Development of detention, probation and corrections placement instruments to allow objective assessment of a youth.
2. Completion of intermediate sanctions and corresponding interventions.
3. Assess substance abuse issues prevalent to juvenile delinquency.
4. Assess existing juvenile drug court models in Clark and Washoe Counties.

Chairman Anderson inquired if the Washoe and Clark County juvenile drug courts would have been in existence for at least a year by the time the study was done. Mr. Peri answered in the affirmative, with the intention being to allow at least 1 year of history to evaluate.

Mr. Peri continued with the subcommittee’s recommendations:

5. Complete new serious and chronic juvenile offender facility.

Responding to questions posed by Chairman Anderson about the facility, Mr. Peri offered some history about that recommendation. He explained Governor Miller had originally recommended a 60-bed facility, but due to testimony received during the 1997 session, the money committees had strongly suggested approving legislation for privatization, considered a minimum of 120 to 125 beds, and that it was built with a core facility to allow for the expansion to 250 beds. The current contract was for 96 beds.

Mr. Steven Shaw, DCFS, reaffirmed, if excess beds exist, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), the owner could fill them, but Nevada would get a discounted rate on the beds occupied. He continued the contract read that once the facility was built, it could be a state owned facility operated by a private corporation. After 2 years, the state could retain operation, if it was dissatisfied with CSC. Mr. Shaw noted the contract also provided for a state employee to be on site to monitor the progress and operation of the facility at CSC’s expense. Mr. Shaw expressed his comfort with the protections built into the contract.

Ms. Evans added that the state did not have a secure juvenile facility at that time. For about 10 years, the legislature had appropriated money to allow the state to place the most serious and chronic offenders in out-of-state facilities. The new facility would be secure and put an end to out-of-state placements.

Assemblyman Collins pondered if this expense stemmed from the state doing an inadequate job of educating and caring for kids and whether that had been addressed in the study.

Responding to Mr. Collins’ remarks, Ms. Evans pointed out the committee had the same concern, especially with the move to privatization. The committee was interested in knowing if the private provider had plans to offer educational or vocational programs, counseling, and mental health services. They wanted assurance the youths would have resources available, enabling them to obtain skills and better themselves. Ms. Evans stated the committee felt reassured that would be the case.

Mr. Shaw reiterated, "This one is very rich in programming. It is not warehousing kids." He pronounced his satisfaction with the contract and the facility.

Chairman Anderson thanked Mr. Shaw and asked Mr. Peri to continue with his review of the recommendations.

Mr. Peri continued with the summaries of recommendations 6 through 15.

6. Consider restructuring the state/county relationship and to consider the Reclaim Ohio Program. Mr. Peri elucidated that being a program implemented by the state of Ohio, which provided funding to the local jurisdictions to develop diversion programs and other programming that ultimately, resulted in the decreasing commitments to the state level.
7. Asked that a statewide gang survey was conducted and recommendations be considered and developed on prevention and intervention.
8. Conduct a school violence assessment.
9. Survey school districts regarding alternative education programs.

In response to a question by Chairman Anderson, Mr. Peri answered yes, the alternative education program would apply to students who had been expelled due to attendance rules.

10. The subcommittee received considerable testimony from several county district attorneys offices asking that certain statutes be amended. There was no action taken because of differences of opinion and concerns by members of the subcommittee. Mr. Peri said the district attorneys were asked to follow the normal legislative process and to approach the 1999 session with their specific requests.
11. Develop standards of operation for juvenile facilities, to ensure proper qualifications were maintained not only for staff, but also the operation of detention and correctional facilities.
12. Evaluate mental health needs and services in the interface with juvenile justice programs and look at data processing systems within state and local governments related to the tracking of juveniles.
13. Evaluate the need to establish truancy centers and recommendations for reducing truancy.
14. Consider whether professional social workers should be employed by school districts.
15. Draft a bill to create an interim study committee on juvenile justice after the conclusion of the 1999 legislative session.

Assemblywoman Leslie congratulated Ms. Evans and Mr. Peri on their work. She noted she had participated in several of the hearings and this document (Exhibit G) was an excellent reflection of the public testimony heard by the subcommittee.

In response to Ms. Leslie’s request for clarification in regard to some of the reports’ due dates (Exhibit F), Mr. Peri explained upon receipt, they would be distributed to the committee.

Ms. Leslie expressed her interest in recommendation 12. She noted she had asked the director of the Department of Human Resources to do a more thorough analysis of how many kids were on the waiting list for mental health care, how many had Medicaid, why they were not getting care, and how long they had been there. She was concerned with youths only being able to obtain mental health care by entering the juvenile justice system.

Replying to Mr. Carpenter’s desire for explanation of recommendation 13, Mr. Peri stated the subcommittee had received testimony that indicated truancy had a major correlation to juvenile delinquency. More specifically, he drew attention to testimony received about a boys and girls club in Carson City. The club had created a truancy center, where kids could be brought that were picked up on the street who should have been in school. Whether it was counseling for the youth or their family, services were provided with the goal of reducing truancy. Recommendation 13 asked that similar programs be explored in more detail for effectiveness and replication.

Chairman Anderson pondered if this was not a policy question in the area of education, rather than a purview of the committee and commented it was a diversionary program.

Responding to Chairman Anderson’s comment, Ms. Evans explained with truancy centers, there would be an effort to work not only with the youngster, but involve the family so it did not become a chronic problem.

Assemblywoman Koivisto questioned whether, with the new facility, out-of- state placements would be brought back to Nevada and if so, would that mean we would again have opposing gang factions in the same facility. Mr. Shaw explained in the second year of the biennium, the budget did not provide for out-of-state placements. He added the facility would have four different pods in which gang members could be separated and the staff ratio would be 8 to 1. He concluded by saying that should not be an issue with the new facility.

Ms. Koivisto also asked, in regard to recommendation eight, if there was communication with children in school. Mr. Peri responded that the report had not been submitted yet, but he believed the survey could poll students, teachers and administrators.

Assemblyman Brower inquired whether the new facility’s contract addresses liability for tort claims and, if so, whether the private contractor would be assuming liability for any claims. Mr. Shaw expressed uncertainty but replied he would provide an answer after reviewing the contract.

Referring to Mr. Carpenter’s previous concern with truancy centers, Ms. Leslie noted it was her belief that additional legislation was not necessary to create truancy centers because in 1997, legislation was passed allowing school districts to institute truancy centers. She added it was a cooperative effort on the part of individual school districts.

Chairman Anderson pointed out the purpose of the recommendations was to establish a uniform program statewide, rather than only in selected counties.

There being no further questions on the study, Chairman Anderson thanked Ms. Evans for her hard work and time.

Ms. Evans concluded by asking for the support of the committee when the resolution to continue the study came forward.

Mr. Collins then shared with the committee the personal struggle he endured in obtaining his high school diploma. He expressed frustration with trying to find a way to make it better for kids. Specifically, he expressed his hopes to help those kids with problems in order that they become contributing members of our society and not to just lock them up.

Ms. Evans conveyed her admiration for Mr. Collins and his courage in sharing his story. She said his story illustrated success and was the very reason why we needed to pay attention. Ms. Evans reiterated, "Simply providing sanctions, punishment, locking up isn’t going to do it. In some cases that sort of treatment merely provides entry into the adult correctional system and doesn’t help youngsters get on track and that is why the subcommittee wanted assurances that they weren’t going to put them in there and just lock the door. These are young lives that can be helped and have a chance of being productive citizens and it is our job not to let them down. It is our obligation to give it our very best."

Chairman Anderson moved to the next order of business. On behalf of the committee, he wanted to recommend the request of a bill draft. He explained he had received correspondence from the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada outlining several programs and concerns. He requested the committee consider an amendment to allow for a jury trial in misdemeanor domestic battery cases in which the suspect’s career was in jeopardy and battery was contested. He added, that bill would come back to the committee for discussion.

Chairman Anderson reminded the committee that it had six bill drafts to request. That would be one of the six to come from the committee as a whole.

Ms. Buckley asked for clarification on how the requests would be chosen. Chairman Anderson said his intent was to deal with them on a first-come, first-served basis, but he would hold back three in order to entertain all suggestions.

Chairman Anderson next pointed out a list of 11 Bill Draft Requests (BDRs), most coming from the administrative department of the government, for committee introduction.

• BDR 14-450 - Eliminates duty of director of department of prisons to return certified copy of judgment of conviction to county clerk upon termination of imprisonment of prisoner (A.B. 78).

• BDR 3-663 - Requires that defendant be identified in writ of garnishment by social security number or tax identification number (A.B. 77).

• BDR 16-751 - Requires division of Parole and Probation of department of motor vehicles and public safety to categorize discharge from parole as honorable or dishonorable (A.B. 79).

• BDR 16-235 - Makes various changes concerning parolee who is incarcerated in another jurisdiction (A.B. 80).

• BDR 1-401 - Clarifies that judges of municipal courts and justices of the peace may not seek reelection if they previously were removed or retired from any judicial office (A.B. 81).

• BDR 14-444 - Transfers duty to establish compensation of members of sanity commission from judge to administrator of mental hygiene and mental retardation division of department of human resources (A.B. 82).

• BDR 15-273 - Provides that certain crimes and civil actions concerning credit cards also apply to debit cards (A.B. 83).

• BDR 16-236 - Authorizes chairman of state board of parole commissioners to designate member of board as senior parole commissioner (A.B. 84).

• BDR 15-595 - Makes various changes concerning penalties for convictions of petit larceny and concerning taking into custody and detention of persons suspected of shoplifting (A.B. 85).

• BDR 1-576 - Requires justices of the peace in certain townships to be licensed and admitted to practice law in courts of this state (A.B. 86).

• BDR 3-611 - Amends provisions governing civil liability of certain person and entities (A.B. 87).

After reading those summaries, he reminded the members of the committee that a vote for introduction did not mean you could support the measure but "that you feel it is a fair discussion for this committee to uptake."

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:43 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: