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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing for the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.

Assemblywoman McClain relayed the message to Chairman Anderson that Assemblywoman Angle asked to be excused because of illness.

Chairman Anderson stated the amendments to A.B. 83 and A.B. 85 were discussed in committee the previous day. Legal staff had prepared the amendments which would be reported on the floor today. The amendment to A.B. 83 concerned banks and financial institutions and the amendment to A.B. 85 was concerning restitution and community service.

Ms. Lang stated restitution was included in A.B. 83.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing of A.B. 86.

The first person to testify in support of A.B. 86 was Judge Stephen Dahl, Justice of the Peace for North Las Vegas. A.B. 86 left intact the requirement in townships of more than 250,000 the justice of the peace must be an attorney. In counties of more than 400,000 such as Clark County, the bill would require the justice of the peace must also be an attorney in townships of more than 100,000. The bill would affect Henderson and North Las Vegas townships. Clark County was sponsoring the bill because of the explosive growth in recent years. The justices of the peace in Las Vegas were already required to be attorneys. A.B. 86 would add the same requirements for those two townships north and south of Las Vegas because they all had similar caseloads.

Assemblyman Brower asked which law required a justice of the peace be an attorney. Judge Dahl stated Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 4.020 required the justices of the peace must be attorneys in townships of more than 250,000 regardless of county sizes.

Mr. Brower asked Judge Dahl what routine cases appeared in his court. Judge Dahl stated the main part of his caseload was criminal. He had cases from murder to petty drug charges, evictions, preliminary hearings, and small claims.

Assemblyman Collins asked if the bill would affect Boulder City or Mesquite? Judge Dahl expressed that A.B. 86 would not affect Mesquite or Boulder City. Those two communities did not have the volume of cases handled in the townships of North Las Vegas, Las Vegas, or Henderson.

Chairman Anderson asked if attorneys were better prepared to serve as a justice of the peace because of the volume of cases? Judge Dahl responded a justice of the peace with hundreds of hours of training and years of experience was capable of doing the job and was able to handle the volume of cases. He felt continuing education was important and he did more training than was required.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked if Judge Dahl’s staff did most of the work for him. Judge Dahl stated he had no legal staff and did his own legal research to make his decisions. Judge Dahl stated he handled a variety of cases that came before him. Justice court was the first court in which a case was presented.

Judge Kent Dawson testified he and Judge Rodney T. Burr, were justices of the peace in Henderson spoke in support of A.B. 86. With a population of 165,000, Henderson would be eligible for a third justice of the peace when the population reached 200,000 in the next 2 years. He expressed concern the third justice of the peace be able to carry his or her share of the cases. He desired the third justice of the peace be a licensed Nevada attorney. Because of the volume of cases, a justice of the peace in Henderson needed years of experience with the law as opposed to a justice of the peace in a rural community who had the time and the ability to research each case that came before him.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if there had been any concern from the voters whether a justice of the peace be an attorney. Judge Dawson responded he did a professional political poll in 1996 in which most voters felt the justice of the peace in their township should be an attorney. Judge Dahl added that of the four candidates in the election 4 years ago, the candidate who was not an attorney came in fourth.

Randall Weed, District Attorney, Clark County District Attorney’s Office stated he had served in office for 20 years in the townships of northern Clark County and the volume of cases was much more demanding of a justice of the peace in North Las Vegas. He was concerned the judge, district attorney, and defense attorney were at the same level of expertise; predictability came into play. Court cases had been resolved without going to hearing. When a defense attorney came before an inexperienced justice of the peace, he tended to take advantage of the situation.

Assemblyman Collins inquired if justices of the peace called one another to save time on research. Mr. Weed had called colleagues every day to share information concerning cases. Judge Dawson stated a judge calling another judge all the time for the other’s ruling on similar cases would slow down the courts.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked Mr. Weed his assessment of the experience level of the justices of the peace in the northern part of Clark County. Mr. Weed responded he had to be cautious as a prosecutor because the justice of the peace would rely on him more than they should because of his expertise. It made Mr. Weed uncomfortable to be in the role of judge and prosecutor. The problem was not the expertise, but the volume of cases in Henderson and North Las Vegas.

Chairman Anderson asked about the possibility of changing townships in Clark County to enlarge the township in northern Clark County to 100,000 or more?

Judge Dahl stated the northern townships with North Las Vegas township would not make a total of 250,000, and the northern townships wanted to be closer to their justice of the peace so those residents would not have to travel 80 miles to appear in court. Nobody wanted to change the townships in Clark County. It was more cost effective to have a justice of the peace in rural areas of the county than to spend $500,000 for a district judge.

Judge Max W. Bunch, Argenta Justice Court, Battle Mountain testified against A.B. 86. He was concerned for the lay judges and that next legislative session the threshold would be lowered further. He stated East Folk Township had a high volume court and a non-attorney judge. He stated a triple homicide in Battle Mountain was the same as a homicide in Las Vegas. Allowing the bill to pass would not let the voters choose who they felt was the best qualified.

Assemblywoman Buckley questioned if an increase of 30,000 in the rural counties and 100,000 in the two urban counties got another justice of the peace. Judge Bunch responded the last legislative session granted a new justice of the peace for Elko County’s increase of 30,000. Assemblywoman Buckley asked if Judge Bunch knew what the figures were for getting another justice of the peace. Judge Bunch stated if there was a need for another justice of the peace, the county commissioners would make that decision, and it would be based on volume not population.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated in the past the less populated counties had asked for special considerations in comparison to the two large urban counties. A representative from a less populated county opposed a special consideration requested by the largest urban county.

Judge Bunch stated he had to have the same training as attorney judges. He restated his concern for the lowering of the population requirement a justice of the peace be an attorney. That would not allow a lot of communities a judge.

Assemblyman Collins commented in the 1980’s the population of North Las Vegas was around 40,000. Currently the population was around 100,000. In 1980’s there were only a few lawyers residing in North Las Vegas. He was concerned about the most qualified candidates being able to run for the office of justice of the peace.

Chairman Anderson stated he would take a motion on A.B. 86 as part of the regular agenda within the week. No action was taken on A.B. 86.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing of A.B. 118.

Chairman Anderson called the committee’s attention to (Exhibit C), a letter addressed to Speaker Dini from Legislative Counsel concerning the constitutionality of A.B. 118. The letter concluded the legislation was not constitutional.

Rick Loop, Assistant Court Administrator, Eighth Judicial District Court, testified for A.B. 118. He distributed Exhibit D which showed the expenses of a jury trial in the Eighth Judicial District Court. He was concerned with the administrative, operational, and fiscal impact of jurors for courts. He reviewed the history of the legislation. In justice courts heard cases dealing with between $3,500 and $7,500 the court costs amounted to more than the value of the case. In Clark County, districts provided the jury for a justice of the peace court. He explained attachment A concerning the fiscal impact and the operational impact of the need for a 4,700 square foot area for jurors in (Exhibit D).

Chairman Anderson asked for the justice court numbers. Judge Loop responded he did not have the figures for justice court. He was concerned because the justice courts were receiving more requests for jury trials and the growth of fiscal impact in the future on the county.

Ms. Lang stated upon review of A.B. 118, she was concerned about the constitutionality of the legislation. The Nevada Constitution stated the right to a jury trial without regard to a dollar amount. In some other states if the amount was $1,500 or less, there was no right to a jury trial. There had been three Nevada Supreme Court cases concerning $894, $798, and $25,000 or less in all three cases the Nevada Supreme Court ruled the party had a right to a jury trial.

Chairman Anderson stated A.B. 118 dealt with Amendment VII of the Nevada Constitution and was probably unconstitutional. District Judge Michael Griffin, First Judicial District Court, Carson City representing the Nevada District Judges Association testified in favor of A.B. 118. At the time that it was written, he questioned the intent of the Nevada Constitution. In his 20 years as a district judge he had never seen a civil jury trial in Carson City. He was unaware of any civil jury trial in Douglas or Elko Counties. He said the cost of summoning 60 jurors for a case less than $10,000 was upsetting to the citizens called for jury duty. The Nevada District Judges Association was willing to let the Nevada Supreme Court decide the constitutionality of the legislation.

Assemblywoman Buckley questioned the number of insurance companies appealing every justice and district court case in Las Vegas. She also asked if there was a way to reduce the number of court cases without a bill being ruled unconstitutional.

Judge Griffin stated he had discussed that with the Clark County district judges. Cases involving $40,000 or less would automatically go to arbitration. When a court was hearing a $1 million case it was hard to justify stopping for the appeal of a $9,000 case.

Chairman Anderson asked how judges could use discretion to resolve the jamming of the court calendar.

Judge Griffin stated appeal cases had about a 20 percent success rate. His concern was appeal cases had caused the county to spend thousands of dollars to possibly save money by appealing the case before a jury. He stated arbitration issues would be addressed in different legislation. He stated it was a serious concern.

Judge William Jansen, Justice of the Peace in Las Vegas, testified for A.B. 118. He agreed with Judge Griffin on the constitutionality of the legislation. He stated he would uphold whatever was the ruling of the Supreme Court. The whole purpose of the justice court was to come in, be heard, and get out. The justice court was the people’s court. He stated that 75 percent of his cases were criminal. Attorneys would rather spend 3 hours in court before a judge than spend at least 3 days with a jury trial. The average cost for a 3 day jury trial for a civil case was $1,800. He was concerned about the waste of time and tax dollars.

Assemblywoman Buckley asked if Judge Jansen had tried to use a settlement judge in his court. Judge Jansen stated he had a pretrial conference where he brought the two parties together with their pretrial briefs. He reviewed the pretrial briefs and asked if that was all the information; then explained how he would rule in that case. The attorneys went back to advise their clients as to how the judge would rule.

Chairman Anderson questioned whether Judge Jansen had a problem with changing the language of A.B. 118 from "must" to "may" which would leave it at the discretion of the judge. Judge Jansen responded he did not have a problem with the language.

Judge Griffin stated the Nevada Supreme Court would rule on the constitutionality of A.B. 118. He wanted to "get it started."

Assemblyman Gustavson wanted to know what was the cost of the case coming before the Nevada Supreme Court. Judge Griffin stated the case would come before the Nevada Supreme Court quickly and would not be costly to the State of Nevada.

Richard Shrader, Jr. with American Automobile Association (AAA) of Nevada testified against A.B. 118. He stated people ruled in jury trials. A.B. 118 set a bad precedent. Chairman Anderson questioned if his company evaluated each case. Did the company do better when a case went to a jury trial on appeal? Mr. Shrader stated 80 percent of the cases in district court were resolved which left 20 percent of the cases going to trail.

Assemblyman Carpenter did not want to place a monetary value on our right to a jury trial. He stated Americans have fought a number of wars to protect our rights. He had a problem taking the power from the people and placing that power in the courts and stated he would be against the legislation. He felt it should be placed in the form of a constitutional amendment for the voters to decide.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 118 and opened the hearing of A.B. 121.

Mr. Doug Dickerson, Deputy Director, City of Las Vegas, stated he would like to formally request Bill Draft Request (BDR) 14-843 be combined with A.B. 121. He stated when A.B. 121 was introduced there was a great deal of opposition to it. He had been working to resolve the conflict. Please refer to (Exhibit E).

• BDR 14-843 – Increases various fees and authorizes imposition of new fees by the court.

Please refer to (Exhibit F).

Chairman Anderson appointed a subcommittee of Assemblywoman Ohrenschall and Assemblyman Brower. Ms. Ohrenschall was the Chairwoman to take care of writing the amendment. The committee would report back to the full committee by March 8, 1999.

Mr. Dickerson stated Chairman Anderson’s decision was acceptable to him.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing of A.B. 122.

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, testified that the bill was a Washoe County Bill Draft Request (BDR). She stated if the victim was to receive restitution and could not be found, the money should go into a local victim fund to provide service as opposed to going to the state.

Janet Garner, Coordinator of Fraud Check Division, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, testified for A.B. 122. She stated there was currently $20,000 in the victim fund for victims who could not be located.

Lidia Osmetti, Director of Victim Witness Assistance Center, Washoe County, District Attorney’s Office, testified for A.B. 122. There was currently an existing victim’s fund in the district attorney’s office to assist victims of crime who would not be assisted by any other fund. The fund was in Washoe County and Clark County. The victim’s fund had assisted victims who needed financial assistance, and there were no other funds available.

Chairman Anderson wanted to know to which state fund the money was assigned.

Ms. Shipman stated currently the restitution money for victims who could not be found went into the state unclaimed property fund and not to the state victim compensation fund. She had not spoken with the State of Nevada and no funds had been turned over to the state. The state had not lost any funds because the state never received any funds. She stated the Carson City District Attorney collected the victims’ money for restitution and other counties could benefit from the bill to establish a victim’s fund.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the justice court accepted the money and did it collect restitution money if the money was not paid in a timely manner. Ms. Garner stated the court ordered the person to appear at the restitution office to sign up and to pay restitution. The court monitored payments of restitution on a monthly basis. Chairman Anderson asked if a bench warrant was issued to collect late payments.

Ms. Garner stated the courts could issue a warrant.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked for the amount and the number of victims yearly.

Ms. Garner stated $4,000 a year was collected and there were between 100 to 200 victims who could not be located each year. The amount of the checks ranged between $4 and $1,500.

Assemblywoman McClain questioned the amount of the fund in Clark County. Ben Graham representing the Nevada District Attorney’s Association stated the amount was $50,000 in Clark County’s unclaimed restitution fund. There were about 2,400 victims a year who could not be found.

Chairman Anderson asked if a change in language was needed in A.B. 122.

Mr. Graham asked the bill be amended on page 2 at the end of line 4 "where it says that a fund created by the district attorney." Mr. Graham agreed with Chairman Anderson that there needed be a separate fund created.

Chairman Anderson stated the amendment to the bill beginning at section 1 subsection 3, line 3, "to create a separate fund created by the district attorney’s office for the compensation of victims of crime."

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B 122.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson assigned A.B. 122 to Assemblywoman Buckley.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing of A.B. 22.

Chairman Anderson stated the bill was heard on February 9, 1999, and Mr. John C. Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender’s Office was the principal speaker.

Ms. Lang read the language changes, see (Exhibit G). The language in subsection 1 was drafted to insure it applied to any civil action that could occur while a person was in a state prison or county jail. "1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, if a person who is or was imprisoned in the state prison or county jail is awarded a judgment against or with the State of Nevada or a county or a department, commission, board or other agency of the State of Nevada or a county or a current or former officer, employee or contractor of the State of Nevada or a county arising from a civil action that accrued while the person was imprisoned in the state prison or county jail, the court shall make the following deductions and send the money to the appropriate person, governmental agency or political subdivision of a governmental agency, in the following order, from the money received from the judgement:

• (a) An amount owed by the person for restitution;

• (b) An amount owed by the person for an administrative assessment;

• (c) An amount owed by the person for a fine: and

• (d) an amount owed by the person to repay the expenses of his defense."

Subsection 2 stated a settlement be returned to the court and be distributed in the same manner. Subsection 4 language did not apply to the judgment of settlement of a case that involved the death of a prisoner in prison.

Assemblyman Brower stated he expected to see the word settlement in subsection 1.

Ms. Lang stated Assemblyman Brower’s concern was answered in subsection 2. A settlement would not involve the court.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated she was in favor of settlement and judgement for restitution to the victim. She was not prepared to support the settlement used to repay fines and expenses of a person’s original defense and she did not want the State of Nevada to make money from a prisoner’s settlement. She supported the victim receiving restitution from the prisoner’s settlement with the State of Nevada. Assemblyman Carpenter agreed with Ms. Buckley.

Assemblyman Brower expressed there was a need for the bill. It was a victim’s rights bill.

Assemblyman Collins stated if a prisoner received $1 million from having written a book, he had no problem with the prisoner making full restitution to the victim. However, if the prisoner received a worker’s compensation settlement, he did not see taking a small settlement away from the prisoner.

Assemblyman Nolan stated the bill acted as a deterrent to those who made frivolous suits.

Assemblywoman Buckley thought the bill was a good victim’s rights bill worth considering and passing. She felt restitution was a good place to start.

Chairman Anderson’s amendments to A.B. 22 were in Section 1, subsection 1, Paragraph (a) was to be kept and paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) were to be deleted.

Assemblyman Brower felt there needed to be a clarification at the beginning of section 1 subsection 1 that the bill pertained to judgements and settlements against the state.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson asked that Assemblyman Brower serve as a backup to Ms. Cegavske when she presented the bill to the Assembly. There was a brief recess at 10:32 a.m.

Chairman Anderson resumed the meeting at 10:41 a.m.

Chairman Anderson opened the meeting of A.B. 21.

Mr. Williams stated A.B. 21 was heard on February 9, 1999, but no action was taken. Assemblyman Bache and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani sponsored the bill. The bill addressed the concerns of homeowners associations who wanted to make certain there was a secret ballot for voting at meetings of such associations. Tab E of Exhibit H pertained to the election of the board. Tab F of Exhibit H provided some of the copies of statutes; Nevada Revised Statutes, (NRS) 116.3109 provided for a quorum and NRS 116.311 provisions for voting and proxies. He stated Mary Lynn Ashworth, the ombudsman for owners in homeowners associations had indicated most of the requirements for voting were in the bylaws of the associations and not in statutes. According to Ms. Ashworth, the number one concern of the members of each association was an open election by secret ballot.

Assemblyman Collins mentioned the association bylaws were stricter than state statute and that was okay with him.

Assemblywoman McClain asked to clarify the secret election was for board members and officers.

Chairman Anderson stated the secret election was for the board members and officers.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Assemblyman Manendo reserved the right to change his vote at a later time to vote against the bill.

There was no further business before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:49 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Ken Beaton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: