The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Tuesday, May 11, 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:

After roll was called, Chairman Anderson indicated minutes from February 26, March 5, 10, 12, 15, 22, 23, 29, and April 9 had been finalized and were ready for committee approval. He thanked Assemblymen Brower and Manendo for their hard work in reviewing all of them.

Chairman Anderson drew attention to the work session document from which the committee would be working during the meeting. The document was attached as Exhibit C.

Don Williams, Chief Principle Research Analyst for the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), stated he could neither support nor oppose legislation before the committee or the legislature as a whole. The first bill the committee addressed was Senate Bill 118.

Mr. Williams reviewed the background and previous testimony heard on S.B. 118 (see page 2 of Exhibit C). He pointed out the Chair had requested Ben Graham, representing the Clark County District Attorney’s Office, to determine if something could be done to allow implementation of the bill and to alleviate the concerns raised at the original hearing by Lieutenant Stan Olsen, representing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. He noted Mr. Graham indicated the district attorney’s office said they would work on the bill in order to implement it while eliminating Mr. Olsen’s concerns in regard to the potential impact on the local jail in Clark County.

Chairman Anderson remarked the other 16 counties in the state did not appear to have any opposition to S.B. 118. He said he would entertain a motion.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Koivisto to present S.B. 118 on the assembly floor. The committee turned its attention to Senate Bill 514.

Referring to page 6 of Exhibit C, Mr. Williams reminded the committee of the testimony received on Senate Bill 514. He referred to a letter submitted by George Payne of the Public Employers’ Retirement System of Nevada (see page 12 of Exhibit C). Mr. Payne agreed with the judge’s recommendation to delete subsection 2 of section 3 and subsection 2 of section 9 because those provisions were confusing.

Chairman Anderson pointed out the judges believed those sections to be confusing, but it had been determined that parts of them were necessary. He said he would entertain a motion.

Chairman Anderson suggested the committee address Senate Bill 346.

Mr. Williams reviewed the background and previous testimony in regard to S.B. 346 (see page 5 of Exhibit C). He noted there were two proposed amendments; one submitted at the hearing by the chair of the commission on substance abuse education, prevention, enforcement, and treatment and an alternative amendment submitted after the hearing by Assemblywoman Leslie (see pages 10 and 11 of Exhibit C).

Ms. Leslie explained the first part of her amendment (page 11 of Exhibit C) addressed the composition of the commission. She had shared the committee’s concern about not eliminating any of the general public representatives. She determined that was not the intent. Instead of a "blanket category", her amendment clarified one representative would be from the private sector and three would be from the general public, one of whom had to be a parent of a child who had a mental health or substance abuse problem. The member from the private sector was added in order to address drugs in the work place and drug testing. She explained two members would be added to the commission, one would be a representative from the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and another would be a representative from mental health. The amendment addressed her concern in regard to having more focus on the commission for the dual diagnosis issue with mental health and substance abuse.

Mr. Leslie remarked the second part of her amendment allowed for grants to be made to programs or organization that implement or evaluate substance abuse education, prevention, enforcement, and treatment. The original language was being reinserted and language regarding evaluation was added so the commission could make grants for the purpose of evaluation, which was the commission’s concern.

Assemblyman Nolan appreciated the requirement of two members having budgetary experience but expressed concern it might preclude someone who was very well qualified to serve on the board. He suggested adding "either/or" so only one of the two representatives would have to have budgetary experience.

Ms. Leslie shared his concern. She explained the bureau did not do any direct services so all of their program analysts had budgetary experience. "I think what the commission wants is somebody in there who is a step up from the basic administrative level and the program level so that they will be able to participate in the discussion and maybe help direct the priority." She did not oppose Mr. Nolan’s suggestion.

Mr. Nolan clarified he would suggest leaving subsection 2(d) alone but add "preferably" in front of "with experience in budgetary matters" in subsection 2(e).

Ms. Lang stated generally, preferences were not included but rather the actual requirements were stated.

Chairman Anderson suggested the committee defer to Ms. Lang to develop the appropriate language to accomplish Mr. Nolan’s suggestion.

Ms. Leslie explained amendment 2 on page 10 of Exhibit C would allow the commission’s work to be more closely linked with the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse’s priorities.

The next bill the committee addressed was Senate Bill 148.

Referring to page 4 of Exhibit C, Mr. Williams reviewed the background of S.B. 148. He pointed out the only suggested amendment was to amend subsection 2(e) of section 1 to limit the county jail time to 45 days instead of 1 year. He also pointed out the Chair had received a conflict notice indicating a conflict with Assembly Bill 305 which had passed both houses and been approved by the governor. Both bills affected a section of the Nevada Revised Statutes dealing with presentence investigation reports.

Chairman Anderson appreciated the suggestion to limit the jail time to 45 days but stated judicial discretion to limit the time already existed.

Assemblyman Carpenter stated he would be in favor of a limited prison sentence rather than 1 year in county jail but opined 45 days was too short. He suggested 90 days would give "a judge a hammer and should not really increase the overcrowding too much."

Assemblyman Gustavson pondered if an unfunded mandate was still being created.

Chairman Anderson explained an unfundated mandate would be created but it would be no different than when the committee made an offense a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor.

Assemblyman Brower articulated his desire to allow the judges to render an appropriate sentence. He would not change the language.

Chairman Anderson expressed concern that 3 months might be too short. He also expressed concern with the precedent that would be created. "Since they can put somebody in county jail currently at the justice or municipal level for lesser crimes for up to 1 year, why would we not give them at least that for somebody who has truly committed a felony."

Chairman Anderson stated he would entertain a motion but reminded the committee it would have to be a motion to amend and do pass in order to resolve the conflict with the other piece of legislation.

Ms. Lang clarified the members could not find the other piece of legislation in their bill books because it was heard in another committee. She explained both bills amended a similar section and the conflict would be resolved by some name changes in section 7 of S.B. 148.

A roll call vote was called for.

Chairman Anderson explained while not included in the work session document, he wished the committee to address Senate Bill 360.

Mr. Williams reminded the committee of the testimony heard on S.B. 360. The bill was originally heard in committee on May 7 and the committee had asked counsel to prepare a proposed amendment. The proposed amendment was attached as Exhibit D.

Ms. Lang explained, as directed by the committee, the amendment would amend section 2 to ensure the definition of laser pointer included a laser scope. Section 3 was amended by deleting the language about employment and age, and inserting language about "causing another person apprehension or fear of bodily harm." Section 4 was amended to include "knowingly" and increased the penalty when a light was directed at one of the persons listed in the section.

Mr. Nolan informed the committee he had spoken with Senator James about S.B. 360 on a flight back to Las Vegas. At that time, Senator James did not express any opposition to how the committee was proposing to amend the bill.

Mr. Brower stated whenever he read the words "without limitation" he interpreted that to include the listed term but was not limited to it. He asked if his understanding was correct. Ms. Lang confirmed his interpretation was correct.

Mr. Nolan and Mr. Manendo both expressed support for the bill’s passage.

Chairman Anderson commented on the danger of playing around with laser pointers, noting it probably had not been anticipated.

The Chair drew attention to S.B. 492.

Mr. Williams referred the committee to Exhibit C, page 6. He reminded the committee of the background and testimony given at the original hearing. There were no amendments proposed at that time.

Chairman Anderson acknowledged Ms. Buckley had raised some questions about the bill.

Assemblywoman Buckley remarked previously, she had expressed concern that if the purpose of the bill was only to add expert witness fees, why did the language differ so much from the court rule. She noted on further review, she determined the language was the same, it was just in different places. She said she was comfortable with the bill and would be happy to make a motion.

Mr. Brower recalled the idea was raised that the statute was not needed in light of Rule 68 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP). He asked for clarification why the statute was being amended rather than eliminating the statute.

Ms. Buckley stated her recollection was because the intent was only to add expert witness fees. She explained if that was done through statute it would make Rule 68 consistent. The sponsors of the bill wanted that direction from the legislature in regard to expert witness fees.

Mr. Brower commented "Maybe next time around we can just delete the statute and go with the new Rule 68."

David Wasick, Administrative Counsel to the Nevada Supreme Court, came forward to explain, initially the Supreme Court recommended the statute be amended in order to delegate to the Supreme Court the authority to affirm NRCP 68 as the sole authority in the area. When the bill was heard in the Senate, Senator James expressed valid concerns. Mr. Wasick said the hope was NRCP 68 would evolve to the point where NRS 17.115 might be amended in such way there would only be one authority.

Mr. Nolan disclosed he was listed in several journals as a national forensic expert and had functioned as an expert witness in several trials in other states. He did not believe that posed any type of conflict and therefore, he would be voting.

The Chair repeated the motion made by Ms. Buckley and seconded by Ms. Ohrenschall.

Chairman Anderson said S.B. 492 could be placed on the consent calendar.

Chairman Anderson indicated the committee would now address Senate Bill 30.

Reading from page 1 of Exhibit C, Mr. Williams reminded the committee of the testimony heard by the committee in regard to S.B. 30.

Ms. Buckley told the committee she had consulted with the Clark County justice court after the hearing and they told her they had no problem with the small claims court increase from $3,500 to $5,000. They opined it would allow more people access to small claims court without a lawyer, and currently because they handled all cases under $7,500, it would only result in a shift in the calendars. However, they expressed great concern with raising the jurisdiction from $7,500 to $10,000. Ms. Buckley explained in Clark County there was only 1 justice of the peace for every 100,000 people. The criminal and civil caseloads were staggering. The judges pleaded for the committee to hold off on that increase because it would only shift more cases to them. She informed the committee she had spoken to Senator Amodei, and he had no problem with eliminating the justice court jurisdiction increase to $10,000 from the bill.

Chairman Anderson told the committee of an issue recently brought to his attention. It was suggested the bill could be a potential carry for another topic. He explained the possibility of working into S.B. 30 the issue of jury pools. The justice court jury pool was currently pulled from the related township. The intent of adding an issue to the bill would be to broaden the jury pool to mirror that of the full county, thus, facilitating the ability of the justice court to utilize the district attorney’s system in regard to the jury pool. He recognized that might cause a problem for the smaller counties but for Clark and Washoe County it would greatly facilitate the opportunity to do that. Chairman Anderson emphasized it did not have to be done in the current piece of legislation.

Rick Loop, representing the Eighth Judicial District Court, explained what had been contemplated and proposed was to use the existing district court jury services, which drew from the county at large and utilize that jury pool to provide juries to justice courts. "For district courts to provide those smaller jury pools really skews the randomization process." If "city, township and precinct" were removed from the statue and the county was substituted for counties larger than 100,000, that would allow existing jury services to provide juries to justice courts without the problems that were currently being experienced. It would save both Clark and Washoe counties money and it would make the process easier.

Chairman Anderson cautioned the committee the proposal to "expand the bill to an area where it was not intended to go" was one that should be given much consideration.

Ms. Lang said it would be at the discretion of the Chair.

Gemma Green, Legislative Representative for the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, came forward and told the Chair she had not seen or heard of the proposal.

Chairman Anderson said in that case, the committee would go no further with the proposal just presented.

The committee discussed the need for a bill to be introduced next legislative session to fix the justice of the peace situation occurring in Clark County. Chairman Anderson stated the committee would now address Senate Bill 120.

Mr. Williams proceeded to review the discussion in regard to S.B. 120 (see page 3 of Exhibit C). He drew attention to an amendment proposed after the original hearing by Lieutenant Stan Olsen from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (see page 8 of Exhibit C). The amendment addressed some of the concerns raised in that hearing by committee members.

Chairman Anderson remarked he had still had some concerns with the bill, particularly with the use of wiretaps.

Responding to a question by the Chair, Ms. Lang explained the amendment proposed to delete the language on page 1, line 11, dealing with battery with the use of a deadly weapon.

Chairman Anderson clarified the bill would retain the language addressing attempted murder, discharge of a firearm at or into an occupied structure, and the definition of discharging a firearm.

Ms. Ohrenschall pondered if, "We are arguing about a tempest in a teapot" noting as long as the language on page 1, line 14, "the commission of any offense", remained there would be a broad enough blanket.

Ms. Lang clarified that was modified by the provisions of NRS 453 or 454. She noted those provisions focused on drugs.

Mr. Brower stated he liked the bill. He remarked the use of wiretaps was already authorized for such nonviolent offenses as extortion, bribery, and destruction of public property. Therefore, he saw it beneficial to society to add a couple of more serious crimes. He also noted the use of a wiretap would still require a court order before it was authorized to use. He did not see the potential for abuse.

Ms. Buckley commented it could be argued that kidnapping and extortion were crimes more apt to be committed over the phone. She suggested there might be a greater need to use a wiretap in those situations.

Chairman Anderson noted attempted murder and murder for hire were specific instances, but he expressed concern with the bill expanding the scope too much in an attempt to curb gang activity and drive-by shootings. He opined the discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure was also a "different kind of event".

Mr. Carpenter agreed with the Chair’s concerns. He expressed hesitancy in allowing people to listen to phone conversations unless it was truly necessary. He wondered, "How far we should go?"

Chairman Anderson stated his intent to hold the bill for further review. He drew the committee’s attention to Senate Bill 395.

Mr. Williams explained S.B. 395 would require crime scene photographs to be submitted to the parole board for the hearings concerning certain inmates. The bill was originally heard in committee on April 28. The proponents of the bill included Senator Washington, a president of a local crime victim’s organization, Carlos Concha, Chief of the Division of Parole and Probation, Ben Graham, Legislative Representative for the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, and Captain Jim Nadeau, representing the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association. He reminded the committee there was no testimony in opposition to the bill but there was a conflict notice received by the Chair indicating a conflict with Assembly Bill 390. A.B. 390 was another "parole bill" passed by the committee on judiciary and already approved by Governor Guinn. Mr. Williams explained while there were no amendments proposed at the hearing, the Chair had a recommendation to amend the bill.

Chairman Anderson expressed concern with a couple areas of the bill. He was concerned with who had control of the photographs to be submitted to the parole board, how long they were retained, and the cost associated with storing the photographs. Senator Washington did not object to Mr. Anderson’s suggestion to modify the bill in order to limit the photographs to those that had been sent to the judge as part of a presentencing report. The Chair noted he was awaiting a response from Mr. Concha about the cost of holding such materials, but he had previously indicated the division currently held those materials, and he did not believe any additional cost would be too significant.

Ms. Buckley expressed her support for the bill but wanted to see it clarified that a parole hearing could not be challenged if photographs were supposed to be submitted but were not. She did not want to see a loophole created for the prisoners when she understood the bill to be a "victim’s rights measure".

Chairman Anderson recognized the validity of Ms. Buckley’s comments. He asked Ms. Lang for any suggestions of modifying language that could be added to clarify the lack of photographs did not constitute a cause for appeal.

Ms. Lang remarked section 3, subsection 2, stated "reasonably available". If the committee wanted to, language could be added to indicate "failure to make available any such photographs is not cause for appeal from the decision of the parole board."

Chairman Anderson said he felt strongly about the photographs being the same as were used at the presentencing hearing and not just "anything that is out there". He reiterated his support of Ms. Buckley’s suggestion.

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:17 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: