The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Tuesday, March 30, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Lt. Stan Olson, Government Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police

Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General

Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Susan Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence

Capt. Jim Nadeau, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

John C. Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender

Bruce Kennedy, Department of Human Resources, Chief, Nevada Youth Parole Bureau

Ian Curley, Juvenile Probation Officer II, Carson City Juvenile Probation

May Shelton, Director, Washoe County Social Services

Bruce Alder, Deputy Administrator, Department of Human Resources

Scott Doyle, Douglas County District Attorney

Samuel P. McMullen, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Sate Board of Nursing

Bill Bradley, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association

Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order and proceeded with roll call. There was a quorum present.

Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, Clark County Assembly District 15, testified A.B. 473 provided some provisions regarding juveniles in domestic violence cases. She introduced Lt. Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Nancy Hart, deputy attorney general, Office of the Attorney General.

She referred to page 3, line 28, of the bill if a teenager or child someone under 18 was detained for domestic violence under current law, the police would have to call the parents or guardian immediately to come and pick them up. The new language would allow the juvenile to be detained for the 12-hour cooling off period the same as an adult. She referred to (Exhibit C) a letter of support from Joni A. Kaiser, executive director, Committee to Aid Abused Women (CAAW).

At that time Lt. Olsen stated they had asked Ms. McClain to come forward with the bill due to an increasing problem with holding juvenile suspects in a domestic violence case. Juvenile authorities had explained situations where a juvenile had significantly injured a parent or sibling to the point of broken arms or stitches, juvenile authorities were mandating parents to pick up the juvenile within 3 to 4 hours after processing.

Some juvenile offenders were extremely violent and parents did not want to have them released until they had cooled off, especially in cases where parents had just returned from hospital for a broken arm or stitches. Juvenile authorities demanded parents come pick up the child or be charged $83 to $89 per day. They also threatened to go to a judge and get a court order and charge the parents with "contempt of court."

Lt. Olsen referred to nine points relevant to the bill supplied by juvenile investigators and an example as to what had occurred (Exhibit D).

Nancy Hart, deputy attorney general, Attorney General’s Office, supported A.B. 473 and the inclusion of A.B. 523, a bill sponsored by the Attorney General’s Office.

Ms. Hart informed the committee, regarding the 12-hour hold, Washoe County unlike Clark County had a policy of holding juveniles for 12 hours because they believed it was necessary and important.

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman McClain if she had problems amending A.B. 473 to include A.B. 523.

Assemblywoman McClain said she would be pleased with the inclusion of A.B. 523.

Assemblyman Carpenter referred to section 2 and felt there needed to be an amendment regarding notification to avoid a conflict with A.B. 262.

Chairman Anderson acknowledged he had not received a conflict notice and questioned if Mr. Carpenter meant to amend line 31, section 2, page 3. Mr. Carpenter responded on lines 16 and 17, remove "when practicable" and replace with "without undue delay." Mr. Anderson asked Ms. Lang to draw the distinction between "when practicable" and "without undue delay." Ms. Lang felt the intent of "when practicable" meant there had to be the means with which to do it and "without undue delay" meant it would not be delayed any further than necessary.

Ms. Lang said A.B. 262 had not passed the Nevada Senate and that was why they had not received a conflict notice. "Without undue delay" was how it had come out of the Committee on Judiciary.

Lucille Lusk, legislative liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens, supported A.B. 473 with the inclusion of A.B. 523.

Susan Meuschke, executive director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, testified in support of A.B. 473.

Capt. Jim Nadeau, legislative liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office felt it was extremely important for a juvenile to be held for 12-hour cooling off period, he supported combining both bills.

Chairman Anderson commented it appeared necessary to add language from A.B. 523, section 2, page 4, lines 12 to 16, "A valid order for protection against domestic violence issued by another state, territory, or Indian tribe within the United States must be accorded full faith and credit by the courts of this state and enforced as if it were issued by a court in this state, regardless of whether or not the order has been registered in this state."

Also include the language on page 3, lines 3 to 8, "For the purposes of this subsection, a person shall be deemed to have a previous conviction of battery that constitutes domestic violence pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 33.018 if the person has been convicted of such an offense in this jurisdiction or has been convicted of violating a law of any other jurisdiction that prohibits the same or similar conduct."

Chairman Anderson supported using sections 1 and 2 of the amended language but felt it would necessitate looking at NRS 33.018 in order to understand the whole process. He was referring to section 2, subsection 2, "A child who is taken into custody for committing a battery that constitutes domestic violence pursuant to NRS 33.018 must not be released from custody sooner than 12 hours after he is taken into custody." He generally preferred to pick up a piece of legislation and read in one single location all of the circumstances that applied rather than researching several different volumes.

Mr. Anderson restated for clarification they would be adding sections 1 and 2 from A.B. 523 and amend Ms. McClain’s language to drop "when practicable" from the current section 2 of A.B. 473.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Assemblywoman McClain to present on the assembly floor.

Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, Clark County Assembly District 12, said A.B. 511 basically applied to juvenile sex offenders in cases where had the action been committed by an adult would have been a sexual offense. The bill tied in community notification procedures for those juveniles and included the parole bureau of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). Juvenile sex offenders had not been integrated into the system of community notification of sex offenders and that was the purpose of the bill. It was requested on behalf of the Advisory Council for Community Notification.

Bruce Kennedy, Department of Human Resources, chief, Nevada Youth Parole Bureau, testified the Nevada Youth Parole Bureau and the Division of Child and Family Services agreed sex offender notification was an important community safety issue. "Sex offender notification transforms community fears into constructive awareness and enhances community protection through education." He felt A.B. 511 clarified which agency, youth parole or youth probation, was responsible for directing, supervising, and adjudicating juvenile sex offenders.

Mr. Kennedy testified the bill was requested to correct 1997 legislation in which DCFS youth parole officers were left out of the provisions for providing community notification and supervising juvenile sex offenders who were released from state facilities.

The following were his concerns:

1. A.B. 511 seemed only to address commitments pursuant to NRS 62.213, placing them under parole and left other commitments to the state under both parole and probation.

2. There was a potential increase in caseload size due to having youths on parole status until age 21.

3. Allowed lack of consequences for 18 year olds, and what kind of sanctions could be placed upon youths between 18 and 20 who would be on juvenile parole status.

He referred to his proposed amendments (Exhibit E). Mr. Anderson asked if he had shown Assemblywoman Ohrenschall his proposed amendments. He said no. Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Kennedy to explain to the committee what the bill did on a positive note and how the committee might be able to make it better. Mr. Kennedy said on the positive side, the bill would put parole into the direct line of notification.

Chairman Anderson felt the bill would increase communication and clarify who had the responsibility of notifying the various communities.

Ian Curley, juvenile probation officer II, Carson City Juvenile Probation Department, Storey County, stated A.B. 511 was a well-written and important bill. He opined sex offenders were a shared responsibility between parole and probation also the community, legislators, police officers, and therapists.

Mr. Curley submitted a letter from Leonard J. Pugh, director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services, who was unable to attend (Exhibit F). Mr. Curley said they used jail for violation of probation and found it very effective.

Chairman Anderson inquired if Mr. Curley had a chance to review Mr. Kennedy’s proposed amendments. Mr. Curley stated he had met Mr. Kennedy only 5 minutes before the meeting.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Curley regarding Mr. Pugh’s suggestion of expanding the list from the single reference of NRS 62.211 to 62.213 if Mr. Pugh meant 62.211 inclusive through 62.213.

Mr. Curley was uncertain regarding Mr. Pugh’s intentions but thought it only meant 62.213 and 62.211.

Chairman Anderson queried Mr. Kennedy whether his concerns would be addressed if Mr. Pugh’s suggestion was followed.

Mr. Kennedy remarked Mr. Pugh’s proposed amendment would do similar things but would not take care of the concern he had regarding youths who were committed under 62.213 being on parole status, placed on order of supervision, and were not necessarily legally on parole.

Ms. Buckley commented she was having trouble understanding the bill and wanted to clarify what they were trying to do. She wondered if it was Mr. Kennedy’s contention a gap existed in NRS because it only mentioned probation, and if the youth served time in a state facility, parole would have to be included to ensure continued supervision.

Ms. Ohrenschall replied the bill came from the Advisory Committee on Community Notification and that was their intent.

Mr. Carpenter indicated he was also having trouble understanding the concept and felt someone needed to rewrite the bill to accomplish the original intent.

Ms. Ohrenschall explained the thrust was to make sure actual notification got to schools when there was a juvenile offender who might be going back in the school system and would be near somebody else who could be victimized. The bill was drafted by the Attorney General’s Office.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall was more inclined to support Mr. Pugh’s amendments over Mr. Kennedy’s but was open to the committee’s pleasure.

Mr. Anderson made the request on behalf of the Committee on Judiciary for Mr. Kennedy to meet with Mr. Curley and Mr. Pugh to establish clarification to the question around the citations in NRS.

Mr. Anderson was concerned that number 4 of Mr. Kennedy’s proposed amendments (Exhibit E) expanded beyond where the committee wanted to go. If they were going to act on the bill, they needed to move fairly quickly and he suggested Mr. Kennedy provide the committee with an amendment by Friday, April 2 at 12 noon. (The amendments were received April 2 (Exhibit G.)

Bruce Alder, Nevada Department of Human Resources, deputy administrator, Child and Family Services, had not signed in nor had he intended to testify, but wanted to apologize to the committee and the sponsor for the confusion.

Mr. Alder exclaimed A.B. 511 was a good bill, currently when juveniles committed a crime they were under the jurisdiction of county probation, which was confusing because in the adult system probation and parole were the same agency. In the juvenile system there were two separate entities, the counties were responsible for probation and the state for parole. Under current law the requirement for notification was placed with probation departments. However, if a youngster was committed to the state, placed in a state correctional institution like the Nevada Youth Training Center, and left the facility, the youngster was under the supervision of state juvenile parole.

He further commented current law required the probation departments to notify the probation department. The probation department would not know where the youngster was unless parole told them. That had caused confusion and would be alleviated by the bill. He said they were sorry about their lack of preparation, but they had been working on their presentation right up until the meeting.

Chairman Anderson said the bill had been in circulation since March 12 and with the mandated 120 days, everyone was under the gun. He felt it was a disservice to the sponsor of the bill to have not included Ms. Ohrenschall in their discussion of the proposed amendments.

Mr. Anderson requested written verification and support from of all those participating.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 511.

Don Williams, chief principal research analyst and committee policy analyst, stated as an employee of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) he could neither support nor oppose any legislation submitted to the Committee on Judiciary. He discussed the work session document (Exhibit H).

Mr. Williams reported A.B. 406 was requested by Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick and was heard in committee on March 16 with no action taken.

Mr. Williams said the measure authorized justices of the peace and municipal judges to extend suspension of sentence if an offender violated or failed to fulfill conditions of their suspension, and the offender was ordered to serve only part of the sentence.

Assemblyman Hettrick previously testified he requested the proposed legislation on behalf of Judge James EnEarl, justice of the peace of the East Fork Township in Douglas County. Mr. Hettrick said Judge EnEarl requested the bill to provide the justices and municipal courts with the same authority that district courts had in extending the suspension of sentence for an offender who violated or failed to fulfill his condition of suspension. Refer to Exhibit H for the remainder of discussion on the previous hearing and the salmon colored attachment for the information Assemblywoman Buckley had requested regarding "Explanation of procedures concerning a person who had violated a condition of his probation or suspended sentence."

At that time he deferred to Risa Lang who discussed the document. Ms. Lang confirmed while reviewing the statutes on both probation and suspended sentences she found NRS 176A.100 contained formal procedures both for arresting a person who was believed to have violated their probation and to have a preliminary revocation hearing to determine "probable cause." If probable cause was found, the court could either detain the person or place them in residential confinement and have a final revocation hearing.

Ms. Buckley thought the justice of the peace and the Supreme Court Justice would have the expanded ability to suspend the sentence from the date on which the person violated the condition. She would feel more comfortable if due process procedures similar to district court were added to the bill, and if the statutes were consistent, it would not harm the bill but would facilitate the intent.

Mr. Carpenter felt the same way, it was a very difficult bill to understand, and he felt there was no harm in adding the constitutional provisions.

Mr. Brower agreed with Ms. Buckley, "we should amend the bill accordingly, lest we have our intent misinterpreted."

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Mr. Manendo.

Don Williams continued with the next bill on the work session, A.B. 456. Mr. Perkins requested the bill and it was heard in committee on March 18 with no action taken.

The bill made various changes concerning custody of children and termination of parental rights.

Assemblyman Perkins previously testified he requested the bill on behalf of families of murder victims. He said the focus of the proposed legislation was to address child custody when one parent murdered the other and in other domestic violence cases. Exhibit H contained additional information and the proposed amendment from the Nevada Network against Domestic Violence.

Mr. Williams deferred to Chairman Anderson and Ms. Lang for discussion on the proposed amendment.

Chairman Anderson inquired if Ms. Lang thought the amendments were necessary.

Ms. Lang suggested if they wanted to just limit it to the best interest of the child, that could be accomplished by deleting sections 2, 4 and 6 rather than amending them. Provisions were already being added if domestic violence had taken place, then the best interest of the child would be considered in determining custody. Sections 2, 4, and 6 dealt specifically with murder in the first-degree of the other parent which clearly fell under domestic violence.

Chairman Anderson asked if they removed sections 2, 4, and 6 in their entirety would that just leave the sections pertaining to the best interest of the child.

Ms. Lang said sections 2, 4, and 6 were included as separate sections because they had absolute language in specific cases dealing with murder in the first degree when the murder was of the other parent of the child. Sections 3 and 7 spoke to the best interest of the child in which they were in a situation of domestic violence.

Mr. Anderson related if they were going to process the bill the committee may want to hold on to sections 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the bill.

Ms. Lang said for the committee’s clarification the language was already provided in NRS Chapter 125 in the situation in which a divorce occurred, it would be added to the chapter on child custody and placement when the child was found to be neglected or in need of supervision.

Ms. McClain queried by removing 2, 4, and 6 of the bill the assumption would be "it was not in the best interest of the child."

Mr. Anderson asserted that was correct.

Ms. McClain asked if they could ask Ms. Meuschke if that was the extent of her amendment.

Mr. Anderson thought the intent of her amendment was to add new language to section 2, delete section 4 and add new language to section 6.

Mr. Anderson called upon Ms. Meuschke but reminded her to only address herself to the question not to the general need for the bill.

Susan Meuschke, executive director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, said if she understood the discussion, by deleting sections 2 and 6 then what happened when one parent murdered another was no longer addressed.

Ms. Buckley said currently NRS 125.480 stated in determining custody the sole consideration was in the best interest of the child. Language found in NRS 125.480 tracked word for word with the language in section 3.

Mr. Brower surmised the bill created a presumption in the law not existing in the current law in the domestic context.

Ms. Lang said currently the best interest of the child language to which Ms. Buckley referred could be found in NRS Chapter 125 under domestic relations dealing with divorce proceedings. Under NRS 125A custody generally would extend the same standard to other situations in which the parents may not be married. NRS 432B was a different chapter entirely dealing with when the child was taken into protective custody and removed from the parents. It was her understanding the scenario of murdering another parent would be considered domestic violence.

Mr. Brower asked Ms. Lang if one parent committing first-degree murder against the other would not fall within the definition of domestic violence.

Ms. Lang did not know why it would not fall under domestic violence. She requested Sue Meuschke answer the question.

Ms. Meuschke said she was not sure it would fall under the definition because it could have been an act of self-defense not proved at trial. "Taking the children away from someone who was trying to protect them. There needed to be someway for somebody to say do not terminate my parental rights, do not take away custody of my children there was nothing saying I’m an unfit parent, I may have done wrong but I am paying the price."

She further questioned if there was no custody action or no divorce, would those statutes apply. She felt that was part of what Assemblyman Perkins was trying to accomplish by saying in cases of murder the situation needed to be examined.

Mr. Brower responded under the definition of domestic violence, battery was included. He felt a first-degree murder conviction would constitute a battery if nothing else. His concern was whether the definition required spouses or the parents to be living together.

Mr. Nolan questioned the occasional act of euthanasia of ones spouse.

Mr. Anderson disclosed that did not fall under domestic violence.

Ms. Buckley interjected NRS Chapter 125 was the dissolution of marriage, Chapter 125A was custody and visitation, the best interest of the child with regards to domestic violence was found in Chapter 125 not Chapter 125A.

Mr. Anderson said Ms. Buckley argued for the need of the bill in its entirety and if the committee was going to move forward they would have to view the two parties separately, married NRS Chapter 125 and unmarried in 125A. Therefore, the need of the bill including sections 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 become important. Section 4 was not important and the committee had agreed upon that fact.

Ms. Lang clarified the only thing to which section 4 referred was termination of parental rights.

Ms. Buckley felt options regarding conviction of murders were:

A. Leave the language as it was.

B. Have a standard where there was a presumption it was not in the best interest of the child if there was a murder.

C. To have it be under the same best interest of the child standard.

As he understood it Chairman Anderson felt Mr. Brower would be arguing for Ms. Meuschke’s proposed amended language.

Mr. Brower felt Ms. Meuschke’s proposed language was good language and should be adopted. He was not sure he was arguing for that but was arguing that the goal of the bill was to make it difficult if not impossible for a convicted person to retain custody and visitation. He felt that was the goal of the bill. He thought the Committee on Judiciary would want to make sure there was room for exceptions that could be proven by considering the best interest of the child.

Chairman Anderson said he would recommend an amend and do pass motion on A.B. 456 to include suggested language changes by Ms. Meuschke to sections 2 and 6.

Mr. Anderson assigned the bill to Mr. Perkins with Mr. Brower as backup.

Mr. Williams said he would discuss A.B. 158 and A.B. 315 together. A.B. 158 was requested by Speaker Dini, heard in committee on February 25, and referred to a subcommittee.

At the hearing on February 25, Assemblyman Dini provided a brief summary of the bill. Numerous foster parents from the Yerington area testified in favor of A.B. 158. Their testimony included some of the misfortunes to which children in their care had been subjected. Additionally, there were complaints expressed against the Division of Child and Family Services. Participants of the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program also spoke on the measure and offered some amendments. Many ideas were discussed to amend the bill. The measure was then referred to a subcommittee of Assemblywoman Ellen M. Koivisto, Chair; Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley; and Assemblyman John C. Carpenter.

A.B. 158 was heard along with A.B. 315 in subcommittee on March 11 (yellow attachment of Exhibit H).

Mr. Williams explained A.B. 315 was requested by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary on behalf of the Court Improvement Program and Select Committee and the Administrative Office of the Courts and heard on March 3.

During the March 3 hearing, district judges Charles M. McGee, Gerald W. Hardcastle, and Michael P. Gibbons, among others, testified on the measure. Much of the discussion revolved around complying with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1996.

Mr. Williams deferred to Mr. Anderson and Ms. Koivisto. Mr. Anderson thanked Assemblywoman Koivisto and her subcommittee for their hard work and diligence.

Ms. Koivisto pronounced one of the difficulties of the whole system was the bifurcated Nevada child welfare system. After discussion with Risa Lang the subcommittee decided to possibly amend A.B. 158 with added language to bring the state in line with the federal laws and use A.B. 315 as a vehicle to do a study on the bifurcated system to determine how to make it one system.

Chairman Anderson preferred to take care of the amendments to A.B.158

(Yellow attachment of Exhibit H).

Mr. Carpenter wanted to make sure the change from 18 to 12 months was part of the amendments.

Mr. Anderson felt that was the intent.

Ms. Koivisto said changing the 18 months to 12 months was part of the required federal regulations.

Chairman Anderson wondered if May Shelton would prefer the effective date be on passage and approval or July 1.

May Shelton, director, Washoe County Social Services, in order for proper preparation for the changes she preferred the effective date to be July 1 to fit in with the budget year.

Chairman Anderson said it would become effective July 1.

Mr. Anderson asked Ms. Koivisto to provide backup for Mr. Dini.

Chairman Anderson brought the question of A.B. 315 to the committee.

Don Williams upon a request from Chairman Anderson reported on what exemptions currently existed under standing rules regarding limits and deadlines specific to exemptions related to interim studies. Joint Rule 14.6 provided exemptions concerning current limits and deadlines for the 120-day session. Section 4 of the rule stated the provisions of the limits and deadlines did not apply to a resolution requiring an interim study, but it did state that a resolution required a interim study.

Chairman Anderson handed Ms. Lang a copy of rule 14.6 and asked if the committee could amend A.B. 315 to be the carrier of the proposal to the Committee on Elections, Procedures and Ethics for the interim study.

Ms. Lang responded if the committee deleted the provisions of A.B. 315 and changed the bill to become an interim study, it would become a special act rather than a resolution. Bill drafters did not change bills to resolutions, it would have the same effect as creating an interim study.

Ms. Leslie strongly supported the motion. Since she was a member of the Committee on Elections, Procedures and Ethics she volunteered to be an advocate and make sure the resolution said what they wanted it to say.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Don Williams stated A.B. 154 was requested by Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, was heard in committee on February 12 and March 5, and no action was taken. Ms. Buckley gave a status report on the bill at the work session on March 9 and asked that the bill be held for a work session no earlier than March 23.

The bill revised provisions relating to assignment of certain cases in family court and allowed parties in divorce actions to make offers of judgement concerning property rights.

During discussion at the two hearings on the bill, Assemblywoman Buckley stated she requested the proposed legislation to address family court issues that came up after the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee on Family Courts (A.C.R. 32 of the 69^th Session). She noted the bill addressed, among other things, the issue of "one family, one judge"; to make certain that one judge presided over or monitored all the various family court actions relating to one family. In addition, she said the bill attempted to make family court proceedings more uniform and consistent and to provide a more timely and effective resolution of cases.

At the hearing on March 5, District Judge Dianne Steele and Court Master Tom Leeds, both representing the family courts in Clark County, testified in support of the bill. District Judge Scott Jordan, representing the family court judges in Washoe County, expressed concerns with the bill’s provisions regarding offers of judgment in family court cases. In addition, he indicated the bill as written would hurt Washoe County’s court management practices that relied on the use of court masters in certain family court cases. Assemblywoman Buckley proposed amending the bill in four areas. However, she asked for additional time to redraft her proposed amendment in order to consider some of the issues raised by Judge Jordan and others.

At that time Ms. Buckley referred to A.B. 154 part 1 which related to one family, one judge. She drew the committees attention to the proposed amendment (Exhibit I). The only change from the original amendment was number 3 which amended section 10 in its entirety as follows:

"Allow a modified Offer of Judgement in family law cases that would allow a party to apply to the judge for permission to submit an Offer of Judgement if, in the discretion of the judge, it would promote speedy resolution, settlement and encourage cooperation. Factors to be considered by the judge would include:

- Whether both parties are represented by counsel;

- Whether issues are conducive to the use of an Offer of Judgment;

- Whether discovery has been conducted and the necessity of conducting discover

If the judge allows the issuance of an Offer of Judgment, and the party refused said offer, the judge may allow costs and fees from the date of rejection of the offer if the judge determines that the rejection was in bad faith."

District Judge Steele, family court, Clark County, confirmed her support of A.B. 154 as amended.

Valerie J. Cooney, legislative liaison, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA) supported the bill as amended and felt it was a compromise between a large number of people with divergent views on the subject. She thought as proposed it provided an opportunity not previously available and was well advised.

Mr. Carpenter felt the amendment was okay, but he was concerned with the fact the woman always seemed to come out on the short end of the situation because in many instances the husband was more familiar with those kinds of things.

Mr. Brower had discussed with Ms. Buckley an offer of judgement provision which he thought was a reasonable compromise. He suggested perhaps the amended language make reference to NRS 17.115 to give the judge some detail as to what sort of costs and fees could be awarded to the prevailing party if deemed appropriate.

Mr. Anderson wondered if Mr. Brower’s suggested amendment should be placed in any other section than section 10. Mr. Brower answered no.

Mr. Anderson questioned if Mr. Brower was saying the judge may allow costs and fees as subject to NRS 17.115. Mr. Brower said yes or in accordance with the statute.

Mr. Anderson felt the bill drafter would probably pick up that type language.

Mr. Brower wanted to make it clear that in practice the details of how the costs and fees were awarded could be very difficult and complicated and the statute NRS 17.115 addressed the offer of judgment in as much detail as possible.

Ms. Ohrenschall stated she liked all of the amendment except for the proposal of not allowing people held in contempt to appeal the contempt and have the appeal heard by a different judge. She understood the need for speed in the court and approved in general of the one judge, one family idea, but she felt asking "God to admit God has made a mistake may be a bit much and the judge in the courtroom was basically God and it would be good to go to another God if you disagree with this one."

Judge Steele believed the option to put forth a petition to disqualify a judge for perceived bias would still be an option permissible under those circumstances.

Chairman Anderson asked Judge Steele if she was saying there was an opportunity for appeal to change venue from one judge to another judge.

Judge Steele said yes, the person had to show the bias they could not just say it might exist.

Ms. Ohrenschall felt there were certain limitations as to what part of the proceedings a lawyer could do when their client forfeited their right. She also questioned if there were certain fees to be filed with motions to ask judges to recuse themselves, which could affect people who had limited funds. She asked if Judge Steele was referring to a voluntary recusal to change a judge.

Judge Steele said no, it was their preemptory to which she was referring. The preemptory challenge mentioned by Ms. Ohrenschall was a $200 waiver to get off the case before the judge had heard anything for no reason at all. What Judge Steele was talking about was the "for cause dismissal of a judge" for being actually biased against one party, and that was always available.

Ms. Ohrenschall wanted to know what exactly did a lawyer have to show and how could it be done, it was a rather severe process. She questioned the severity.

Judge Steele said the lawyer would have a hearing before another judge and they would determine whether or not there was actual bias.

Ms. Buckley felt Ms. Ohrenschall raised a good point regarding the avenues available to a party, recusal for cause or appeal.

Discussion occurred regarding number 4 of the proposed amendment and Ms. Buckley explained in family law cases the statute would not be applicable.

Mr. Anderson said if the question was contempt, those extra provisions of the law would not apply, and they would be able to apply for regular remedy to the situation.

Ms. Ohrenschall stated although that was true if a party was stuck with a judge the party felt, or statistics showed, was prejudiced, it quite often happened to the women because men tended to have more money to hire attorneys and women were forced to take leftovers. There was a high level of discomfort on her part with the provision making women wait over 2 years to be able to fight for their rights before the Nevada Supreme Court to obtain custody and support for children that were continuing to grow. She further stated family court judges were full district judges and why should they not have to abide by the same standards as all the other judges.

Mr. Anderson questioned Ms. Ohrenschall regarding her support of the amended language because of those provisions.

Ms. Ohrenschall objected to number 4 of the proposed amendments. She could support the rest of the bill.

Ms. Buckley responded in that area of law, it was always difficult to help so many people in different situations. She felt the provision would help the party with the least resources more often than not. The party who was trying to avoid child support was the one who would be judge shopping more than the party without resources. She agreed with Ms. Ohrenschall, once in awhile there might be a biased judge against the party with the least resources.

Mr. Williams stated A.B. 52 was requested by the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee on Family Courts [A.C.R. 32 of the 69^th Session] and was heard in committee on February 12, and referred to a subcommittee.

Previous discussion included Assemblywoman Buckley’s testimony that the A.C.R. 32 Subcommittee on Family Courts may have made the recommendation for the legislation in haste. Valerie Cooney, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, indicated her support of the concept in the bill, but she had some concerns with the language. Additionally, representatives from the Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence and the Committee to Aid Abused Women testified against the measure. Finally, Judge Barbara McCarthy, court master, Second Judicial District Court, and Judge Dianne Steele, Eighth Judicial District Court, expressed concern with the bill, and agreed with those who testified against the measure, noting it created a "chilling" effect. The measure was then referred to a subcommittee of Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Chair; Assemblyman Dennis Nolan; and Assemblywoman Kathy McClain.

A.B. 52 was heard in subcommittee on February 23 and March 23. Mr. Williams referred to the report of the subcommittee and proposed amendments (the green section of Exhibit H).

Assemblywoman Leslie thanked Mr. Anderson for the opportunity to chair the subcommittee and everyone involved especially Myra Sheehan from Nevada Trial Lawyers Association.

She felt the Committee on Judiciary needed only to consider the proposed amendment from Myra Sheehan (page 3 of the green section of Exhibit H).

Ms. Leslie recommended they not consider the original A.B. 52 only the amendments. She referred to letters she had received from Scott T. Jordan, district judge, Second Judicial District Court and Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa (Exhibits J and Exhibit K). She had sent the amendments for review to see if perhaps they would change their opinion about the law and whether it was necessary. She reiterated Attorney General Del Papa and Judge Jordan remained strongly opposed because in their view by adopting those amendments the committee would be defining again a special class of citizens who lied for special treatments, and the whole premise of the bill was wrong.

Ms. Leslie said all three subcommittee members differed.

Assemblyman Nolan thanked Ms. Leslie for an outstanding job with the subcommittee. The court masters agreed the abuse occurred when people filed Temporary Protective Orders (TPOs) based on misleading fraudulent information resulting in a temporary restraining order being adjudicated against an individual.

He felt the magnitude of abuse was missed by some people because lying to a judge took away civil rights and liberties from an individual. They could see their children for an unspecified period of time. They might be removed from their home along with their belongings. They might also lose their job over it. In some cases those lies lead to the arrest of an individual. Whether it happened to one person or whether it happened to hundreds if the injustice occurred and the committee could address the problem they should address it. He felt it would be a travesty not to address that type problem. Mr. Nolan felt they should support the amendment.

Assemblywoman McClain expressed her appreciation for being on the subcommittee. She made a motion to indefinitely postpone because one of the things that was so obvious to her was, there were a couple of dozen cases of abuse, and there was always a way to get around any law. She had received reports regarding 4000 domestic violence cases. She referred to Ms. Buckley’s previous remarks and said the bill would actually hurt more people than it would help.

At the second subcommittee hearing there was a motion to rescind the indefinite postponement, but she did not go along with it and agreed to allow the amendments to be brought back to the committee even though she did not believe in the amendments. She felt with the other bills they had heard, including the criminal record repository bill, they could provide some really good statistics on domestic violence. She thought the reorganization of family courts with a chief judge would address the problems. A.B. 339 that put timeframes in hearing TPOs would allow both sides of the story to be heard up front and in a timely manner.

Ms. McClain thought it was premature to consider the amendments of the bill. Section 1 had a "chilling effect" on abused people of either gender, and there was no way she could support the original bill or the amendments.

Ms. Buckley said in family matters there always was a concern when individuals lied, and there was also trepidation because people’s versions of the truth differed. The committee did not want special rules just for domestic violence victims they wanted special rules for everybody who lied in family court no matter who they were. She felt they should let the bill go for the session and try to look at a broader approach next session. There needed to be clear and convincing evidence if any party was lying to the court and depriving someone of their children, they could increase the penalties of rule 11.

Mr. Carpenter believed A.B. 339 addressed some of the problems and would alleviate part of the situation.

Mr. Anderson asked if the committee would feel comfortable sending a letter to the family courts asking for a closer examination and enforcement of Rule 11. The letter would state the issue had been raised several times in discussion and although the committee was not able to reach a resolution, the Committee on Judiciary was concerned about the issue. He asked if that would raise the comfort level of the members without unduly casting a chilling effect upon the court for the enforcement of temporary restraining orders.

Robert B. Metz a concerned citizen submitted a letter in favor of A.B. 52 (Exhibit L).

Mr. Nolan said he would vote in favor of the motion and of sending a letter. He hoped at some point and time the committee would address the problem in an affirmative way.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Williams to draft a letter to the family court divisions, judicial districts 2 and 8, and to the district court levels of the other six districts indicating the Assembly Committee on Judiciary was concerned that temporary restraining orders be followed and enforced. Secondly, that Rule 11 of the Supreme Court Rules of Criminal and Civil Procedure be applied more judiciously and that family courts take a closer look at the whole issue.

Mr. Williams related the bill was requested by the Administrative Office of the Courts on behalf of the Las Vegas Municipal Court, heard in committee on February 23, and referred to a subcommittee. The bill authorized the court to enter a judgement of conviction and impose sentence if a person who was issued a traffic citation violated his written promise to appear.

Doug Dickerson, city of Las Vegas, asked for Bill Draft Request (BDR) 14-843 to be amended into A.B. 121. The measure was then referred to a subcommittee of Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, Chair, and Assemblyman Greg Brower. The bill was heard in subcommittee on March 4, 15, and 29. He referred to the report of the subcommittee (Exhibit M).

Chairman Anderson thanked Ms. Ohrenschall and Assemblyman Brower for an excellent job.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall reported they met on March 3 and thought they had come to a middle of the road and made everyone happy when problems were discovered. They met again March 15 and March 29. Several problems came up including federal funding for highways, constitutional issues, and procedural problems which needed to be addressed. The recommendation of the subcommittee was to amend and do pass A.B. 121 to eliminate the entire present text of the measure and replace it with B.D.R. 14-843 which amended NRS 176.064.

Ms. Lang commented B.D.R. 14-843 was amended to change the formula currently in place in NRS 176.064 for determining the amount a collection agency could charge.

Mr. Anderson said one of the things raised during the hearings on fees, fines, and forfeitures was whether the courts were being used as a new revenue stream for the local governments and judicial districts. He felt A.B. 121 should not be amended as written and recommended to indefinitely postpone the bill.

Ms. Ohrenschall thanked Mr. Brower and the staff who worked so hard in the subcommittee.

Mr. Williams continued A.B. 155 was requested by the Speaker of the Assembly, heard in committee on February 25, and referred to a subcommittee. Paula Winne, executive assistant to Speaker Dini, testified on the Speaker’s behalf. Robert King, a constituent of Speaker Dini’s who asked for the bill to be drafted, also testified in support of the measure. Mr. King pointed out he was mainly concerned with sections 8 to 20 of the bill. He said concerns were raised regarding Fifth Amendment rights by criminal defense attorneys. The measure was referred to a subcommittee of Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chair; Assemblyman Brower; and Assemblywoman McClain.

The subcommittee met on March 22, 1999. On March 22, Chairman Anderson received a notice that A.B. 155 was in conflict with A.B. 68 which was sent to the governor on March 24. Both bills affected Nevada Revised Statues (NRS) 432B.160 (section 23 of A.B. 155). Mr. Williams deferred to Mr. Anderson to discuss the subcommittee report attached to (Exhibit H).

Mr. Anderson said the subcommittee recommended retaining sections, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 29, and 30.

Ms. Buckley questioned why the bill was needed.

Mr. Brower said while he felt the changes made by the subcommittee improved the bill, it was still unnecessary. The bill was basically a "good samaritan" type law which required conduct that the committee all hoped anyone would do in the events like the ones detailed in the bill.

Mr. Nolan said he would vote against the motion due to the fact there were still "good samaritans" everyone heard about daily. If the bill passed it could be reported or construed as something mandating people to act in the event of crises, it may have an adverse effect. He felt people still stopped and tried to help other people.

Mr. Gustavson agreed with Mr. Nolan and Mr. Brower that the bill was not needed. He understood the concerns and with all due respect for those involved in putting the bill together, he could not support it.

Mr. Brower echoed what Mr. Nolan had said concerning the idea of us all acting as good samaritans but felt passing the bill was not the way to do it.

Don Williams stated A.B. 333 was requested by Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, heard in committee on March 23, and no action was taken.

Assemblyman Hettrick testified he requested the measure to address certain situations in which persons were killed in traffic accidents because of drivers committing unlawful acts. The district attorney of Douglas County testified in support of the bill and indicated it was needed because of victims who had lost a family member in such an accident. They wanted the fact of the fatality properly reflected in the charge filed and the conviction obtained for a new crime of vehicular manslaughter involving simple negligence. There was no testimony in opposition to the bill.

Ms. Buckley questioned if it was already a misdemeanor to be at fault for a traffic accident and it caused someone’s death did the bill only change the name of the misdemeanor.

Mr. Anderson said under the bill the district attorney would be able to charge them under reckless driving statutes.

Mr. Brower said his understanding from the testimony of Mr. Doyle was that it would create a new misdemeanor which could result in a person who ran a red light, hit a car, and killed somebody being charged with misdemeanor manslaughter.

Scott Doyle, Douglas County district attorney, said if the bill was law and someone ran a red light, hit a car and killed someone, the district attorney could charge disregard of the traffic signal for running the red light and charge misdemeanor manslaughter as embraced in the bill. They would be alternative charges for the same set of facts and would culminate in a conviction under one or the other depending on the proof at the time of the trial. There would be no stacking.

Mr. Nolan supported the bill and believed the law was needed to give consolation to the families of the victims who died during the event.

Mr. Collins asked for clarification on page 2, section 3, subsection 2, line 14, which discussed a category D felony that was in new highlighted language.

Ms. Lang said the category D felony went back to paragraph (c) which read as a result of violating a provision of chapter 484 or 706 of NRS, whether or not the violation constituted criminal negligence or simple negligence. Currently under subsection 1, that was what the penalty would be even if the new language did not exist. If there was criminal negligence it was category D felony, if it was simple negligence it was a misdemeanor.

Ms. Buckley referred to page 1, lines 16 to 18, of the bill where it mentioned NRS chapter 484 or 706 and wondered if the reference to chapter 484 was drug-related.

Ms. Lang said it was traffic.

Mr. Doyle said the basic formula under the bill required the prosecutor to show a violation of chapter 484 or 706 of certain offenses within chapter 484, excepted out in another portion of the bill and to demonstrate a fact pattern of simple negligence and prove that the negligence and violation of either of those two chapters culminated in the death of another for it to be involuntary manslaughter at the misdemeanor level of the bill.

Mr. Brower pondered if the bill in any way created a new felony.

Mr. Doyle responded it did not.

Mr. Brower asked Mr. Doyle if he understood it correctly, it would not enable a prosecutor to charge a simple tort feasor or someone who was charged with simple negligence with a felony.

Mr. Doyle said Mr. Brower was correct.

Mr. Brower restated his understanding that the bill would allow for the prosecution of simple negligence, but the result would be a misdemeanor.

Mr. Doyle stated that it was not enough to say there was a prosecution for a simple negligence, there was a high degree of overlap between acts of simple negligence and a violation of NRS chapter 484 or chapter 706.

Mr. Brower questioned if the accidental running of a red light could not be prosecuted as a felony under the bill.

Mr. Doyle said no it could not.

Mr. Brower felt Mr. Nolan’s comments were well taken and that if the bill in the opinions of the district attorneys of the state would help them do their job and help victims, he thought it was a good bill and urged passage.

A roll call vote was taken and Mr. Claborn voted no.

Mr. Williams stated the bill was requested by Assemblyman Donald G. Gustavson, heard in committee on March 25, and no action was taken.

During previous discussion Assemblyman Gustavson testified he requested the legislation to clarify Nevada’s good samaritan law and to provide immunity from liability for the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) which were used by qualified emergency and medical personnel on persons who suffered from sudden cardiac arrest. Representatives of the American Heart Association, American Red Cross, Nevada Nurses Association, and various businesses joined the mother of a 13-year-old recent victim of a cardiac arrest in testifying in support of the bill.

Proposed amendment from the American Heart Association, and the document from the American Red Cross were in Exhibit H.

Mr. Williams said the executive director of the Nevada State Board of Nursing proposed the bill be amended to remove "or licensed practical nurse" from subsection 1 of section 2, page 4, at lines 22 to 23 and lines 24 to 25.

A representative of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association expressed concerns with the proposal to remove "Gratuitously" from subsection 8(b) of section 1, page 3, at line 30. In addition, he recommended removing "or willful or wanton misconduct" when it was included in the bill after the term "gross negligence." He also stated that a business or organization should not be exempt from liability if an AED was used after not being properly maintained.

Chairman Anderson proposed that the committee adopt those suggested amendments, and asked the interested parties to reach an agreement on the appropriate use of the term "gratuitously" in section 1 of the bill. Mr. Williams explained Chairman Anderson had asked for a proposed amendment prepared by the Legal Division (Exhibit N).

Chairman Anderson referred to Exhibit N and asked Ms. Lang to explain the proposed amendment.

Ms. Lang tried to incorporate the different ideas brought forth during the first hearing.

Samuel P. McMullen, legislative liaison, Nevada State Board of Nursing, testified page 4 of the proposed amendment subsection (b) "at the scene of an emergency" concerned him.

Bill Bradley, legislative liaison, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, thanked Ms. Lang for the good job on the amendment and felt it satisfied their concerns.

Mr. Brower queried Mr. Bradley on one of the proposed amendments dealing with willful or wanton misconduct language and why they recommended "wanton" deleted and allowed "gross negligence" to remain.

Mr. Bradley stated the good samaritan statute had always been based on the principal that the provider of voluntary services was entitled to immunity as long as his or her conduct did not amount to gross negligence. The term willful or wanton misconduct was a higher standard of ill will than gross negligence, and he believed the good samaritan statute should be based on the standard of gross negligence and not the higher standard of willful or wanton misconduct.

Mr. Brower questioned if Mr. Bradley believed you could sue for willful or wanton misconduct even under a "good samaritan" scheme.

Mr. Bradley said "not only did he believe they could he believed they should be able to."

Mr. Brower’s problem with gross negligence was the difficulty involved in defining the difference between negligence and gross negligence, and he asked Mr. Bradley if he could offer the committee an explanation.

Mr. Bradley thought he probably could as there had been numerous jury instructions attempting to define gross negligence. It was something higher than making a mistake but short of intentionally wanting to hurt somebody.

Ms. Buckley said it was fine to remove that language on page 4, subsection (b), but did not want to remove the same language on page 6, line 6, which was existing language.

Mr. McMullen agreed.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Don Williams updated the committee on A.B. 443 which was requested by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary on behalf of Clark County and heard in committee on March 26 with no action being taken.

A representative of Clark County’s Department of Family and Youth Services testified his agency requested the proposed legislation to provide an additional source of revenue for the juvenile probation agencies in Nevada. He indicated all the chief juvenile probation officers in the state supported the bill. In his testimony, he noted the bill would allow the court to require parents or guardians to pay costs relating to the supervision of their children in the juvenile justice system.

There was no testimony in opposition to the bill.

Chairman Anderson had asked Ms. Lang to review the existing law and determine if the courts already had the authority to order the parents or guardians to pay the costs related to supervising juveniles.

Ms. Lang noted there was a conflict with S.B. 87 and the bill would need amending to resolve the conflict.

Ms. Lang did not find any specific provision of NRS that would authorize the collection of the fee.

Ms. McClain had a real problem with all the bills they heard regarding charging parents for everything.

Mr. Williams said A.B. 78 was requested by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary on behalf of the Department of Prisons and was heard in committee on February 18 with no action taken.

During previous discussion the chief of Classification and Planning for the Department of Prisons testified the proposed legislation changed the existing law to conform to the actual practice. He noted the existing law required the department to return a certified copy of the judgment of conviction and a report to the county clerk of the county having issued the judgement when a prisoner was released. He further stated the practice had not been in place in recent decades and was no longer necessary because the department kept those records and made them available upon request.

A former inmate testified in opposition to the bill. He stated the county clerks should receive and maintain the documents as public record.

The county clerks of Carson City and Douglas County both testified against the bill during the hearing but had reconsidered and withdrawn their opposition.

Chairman Anderson received a memorandum, dated March 1, 1999, from Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk/Recorder, and Barbara J. Reed, Douglas County Clerk/Treasurer, stating they were withdrawing their opposition to the bill (goldenrod copy of Exhibit H).

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson thanked the committee for their cooperation during the long session.

The meeting was recessed at 12:35 p.m. and would reconvene at 4:00 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

__________________________

Novella Watson-Lee,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: