The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:40 a.m., on Wednesday, February 17, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Jo Greenslate, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Jim Weston, Chairman, Advisory Commission on Sentencing, Department of Prisons, and Deputy Police Chief, City of Reno, stated that District Judge Gamble and he were at the hearing representing the commission on S.B. 148 and S.B. 157.

Mr. Weston remarked that District Judge Gamble would speak to S.B. 148, which gives judges additional discretion in handling Category E drug offenders.

David R. Gamble, District Court Judge, Department 1, Ninth Judicial District, and Advisory Commission on Sentencing, testified that when the truth-in-sentencing law was passed during the 1995 session, it created categories of felonies. He explained the Class E category is the least serious of the felony categories and is primarily for possession of a controlled substance without any other factor. Judge Gamble noted that a Category E offense requires a sentence of probation. He also advised that judges have always had the prerogative to impose certain conditions of probation when they place a person on probation, such as drug treatment, an ankle bracelet, and so forth. Historically, one of the main conditions used is immediate jail time as an opening event in the probation.

According to Judge Gamble, the purposes of immediate jail time as a condition of probation are: 1) punishment, especially for repeat offenders; and 2) a term of confinement to begin probation so that the felon has a chance to "dry out," enhancing the felon’s chances of following the rules of his or her probation.

Judge Gamble stated a change in S.B. 148 is to set ranges in the sentencing of Category E offenders as in other categories of offenses. He referred to the language in section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (e) that currently states, " . . . a minimum term of 1 year and a maximum term of 4 years." The language "not less than" would be added before "1 year," and "not more than" would be added before "4 years," in the proposed change.

The second change pointed out by Judge Gamble is in section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (e), beginning at line 21. Previously judges were of the opinion that jail was not an available condition of probation since Category E offenses are an automatic probation crime. Judge Gamble said the commission wanted to reserve jail time as a condition of probation as a tool to prevent repetition of offenses. Further, he asserted judges historically had the option of this condition, but it was overruled in a couple of Nevada Supreme Court cases. Judge Gamble surmised S.B. 148 would merely restore that condition.

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Association, testified in favor of S.B. 148, however he added it will have a financial impact on county jails. Chairman James asked whether there is a fiscal note on S.B. 148. Captain Nadeau replied he was unaware of a fiscal note, but the bill states it will cause a fiscal impact. In Captain Nadeau’s opinion, there is no way of knowing what the impact will be at the present time.

Responding to a question by Chairman James regarding a state impact, Brad Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), replied it is difficult to predict the impact of the bill to the state. The reason for the difficulty is because the maximum sentence for Category E offenses could be reduced, but the minimum sentence could also be raised. Judge Gamble affirmed the state fiscal impact would be due to raising the minimum incarceration period for individuals.

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender, stated he was "mystified" by S.B. 148. He recalled that during the 1995 session, the truth-in-sentencing provision was considered to be a trade-off for minimum mandatory sentences; it was a way to control prison populations to keep minor offenders out. Mr. Morrow remarked that did not work because prior felons with multiple convictions were coming before the court with a simple possession drug charge, and the judge had to put them on probation. He continued the 1997 session reviewed that problem and corrected it. Now people who have multiple-felony convictions, have failed probation, and so forth, can be sentenced to prison by the sentencing judge. For those people, mandatory probation does not apply and has not applied since 1997, and in Mr. Morrow’s opinion, S.B. 148 compounds the problem at the "bottom end of the scale."

Mr. Morrow commented as far as the concept of giving individuals county jail time in order to "dry out," multiple prior offenders are not likely to be out of jail prior to sentencing anyway. Additionally, Washoe County has demonstrated a concern for jail overpopulation. Mr. Morrow opined S.B. 148 is counterproductive to Washoe County programs to reduce its jail population. However, he does agree to the change in language allowing a range in sentencing. In conclusion, Mr. Morrow remarked the problem that was mentioned by the sentencing commission earlier in the meeting has been dealt with by the Legislature in the past, and further amendments to the sentencing statute are unnecessary.

David S. Gibson, Lobbyist, Clark County Public Defender, concurred with Mr. Morrow’s comments. Additionally, he is concerned about changing the sentencing language because under the proposed change in S.B. 148, the district court judges could technically put an offender in jail for a year rather than 30 to 45 days to dry him out. Mr. Gibson advised that would be substituting a gross misdemeanor for a felony and making it possible for the district court judges to hand out sentences that were not intended. He reiterated there is a fiscal impact, especially for the less-populated counties with smaller budgets.

Chairman James requested Judge Gamble to address the issue of why the change in S.B. 148 is needed in addition to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 176A.100.

Judge Gamble stated NRS 176A.100 covers a narrow range of individuals who go before the court with a second Category E offense. He said these people have been through the system since passage of the truth-in-sentencing law and therefore have a prior Category E. Another condition is that they have to be on probation or parole at the time that they commit the second Category E offense in order to avoid the automatic probation. Judge Gamble further testified there are still many categories of multiple offenders who come before the court that must be given mandatory probation. In his opinion, the sentencing commission supports the bill because S.B. 148 restores something that has historically been available to every judge in every felony, the use of the local jail as a short-term "shock" incarceration to begin the probation and to add an element of punishment to an otherwise mandatory probation.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 148 and opened the hearing on S.B. 157.

Mr. Weston testified the reason for drafting S.B. 157 is that 2 years ago, the sentencing commission was charged with analyzing and reviewing the impact of the sentencing structures currently in place and reporting its findings to the Legislature. He advised it has been a cumbersome process with only 60 percent of the Nevada courts (the district courts and the justice of the peace courts) reporting to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History (repository) information needed on convictions in the court system. According to Mr. Weston, one thing that would facilitate data gathering and analysis is for all of the courts in the state system to report their dispositions to the repository in Carson City in an automated manner. Electronic data reporting would enable the commission, state agencies, and other interested parties to retrieve information in a timely manner.

Continuing, Mr. Weston advised that the commission decided to begin by crafting legislation that required the district and justice of the peace courts to report to the repository in a manner prescribed by the state, using both the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMVPS). He said the ultimate goal is to automate every court in the state if funding becomes available.

Judge Gamble addressed two areas. He explained he had spoken to both Barbara Reed and Alan Glover who are clerks of Douglas County and Carson City, respectively, and will be affected by this legislation. Their concerns are: 1) cost; and 2) the vagueness of the bill. Judge Gamble referred to section 1, subsection 1 of S.B. 157 and stated the reason for the language, "To the extent of legislative appropriations . . . " is to avoid the danger of any unfunded mandate to the counties. He said the reason for the vagueness of the bill was intentional to ensure that it meshes with the rest of the "reporting" bills introduced this session. Additionally, section 4, subsection 1 provides for regulations adopted by the director of the DMVPS.

A problem in the language mentioned by Judge Gamble is in section 4, subsection 1. The term "court administrator" means various things in different parts of the state. In Clark and Washoe counties there is a court administrator for the district courts, but in most of the other counties there is not. Judge Gamble advised the intention of the sentencing commission was cooperation with the Administrative Office of the Courts; therefore, "court administrator" should be replaced with "Administrative Office of the Courts." Mr. Wilkinson commented that "court administrator" is the formal statutory name of the Administrative Office of the Courts, and suggested it could be changed to "Office of the Court Administrator." Judge Gamble remarked that would still be confusing for the courts that have court administrators. He also pointed out that in different sections of S.B. 157, the title affects district courts, justice courts, and municipal courts.

Mr. Weston added that the reporting requirement excludes the bulk of misdemeanor crimes other than felony driving under the influence (DUI) and serious crimes such as that.

Senator McGinness inquired whether there is a corresponding bill going to the Senate Committee on Finance to fund S.B. 157. Mr. Weston replied not from the sentencing commission. Chairman James remarked the bill will be accomplished to whatever extent it is funded.

Nile D. Carson Jr., Lobbyist, Deputy Chief, Reno Police Department, and Governor’s Advisory Board for the Criminal Justice Information System, testified in support of S.B. 157. He stated his department wants to ensure the accuracy of information gathered by the Criminal Justice Information System, and reported this bill contributes a good deal toward that goal.

Brian E. Doran, Deputy Court Administrator and Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of the Court Administrator, spoke in favor of S.B. 157. His only concern, again, was funding. He said they do have limited funds with the Uniform System of Judicial Records that his office collects through its assessment fees. Additionally, Mr. Doran’s office has a strategic plan for new technologies for the court system. He introduced Ron Titus, the manager for planning and analysis.

Ronald R. Titus, Manager, Planning and Analysis, Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of the Court Administrator, advised there are 83 courts in the system that use a case-management system to manage their caseloads. Only approximately 20 of the 83 are satisfied with their systems, and none of them have the capability to electronically report information to the repository. Mr. Titus remarked the best way to obtain accurate information is to obtain it directly from the courts, preferably straight from the case-management system. He added, however case-management systems are expensive. In conclusion, Mr. Titus stated his office is working toward creating standards for case-management systems to report electronically not only to the DMVPS but also to the supreme court and other local and federal government agencies. Mr. Titus asserted this is in line with their action plan, but he is not sure when the funds will be available to complete the planned activities.

Mr. Doran remarked it was brought to his attention that there is a statute being considered which requires that a case initiated by an agency has to report the disposition. He advised that the other statute might need to be changed so that it will not be in conflict with S.B. 157. Per a request by Chairman James, Mr. Doran agreed to see that staff obtains information regarding the other statute.

There being no further testimony on the bill, Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 157. He said he spoke to the sponsor of S.B. 172, Stan E. Olson, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, who said the bill did not read the way he intended, and he is no longer in support of it.

Chairman James advised that the committee would not hear S.B. 172 at this time but would perhaps consider it at a later time.

The Chairman then opened the hearing on S.B. 173.

Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, and Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, stated he was also representing all of the city prosecutors in Nevada who deal with prosecution of misdemeanor cases. He distributed a document titled "S.B. 173 Discovery ¾ Proposed Amendments to Bill as Printed" (Exhibit C) and presented a brief background on discovery. He testified that in southern Nevada, in the criminal-defense area, there was virtually an open-file discovery process. In other parts of the state discovery was not provided in that manner, and it was more of a "hit-and-miss" process. Continuing, Mr. Graham explained that in 1997, legislation was enacted that provided formality agreements stating all parties needed to be present for felonies, but in the process of passing the bill, formalities were also applied to misdemeanors. Mr. Graham asserted he was presenting S.B. 173 to eliminate some of the formalities dealing with discovery in misdemeanor cases only.

Mr. Graham referred to Exhibit C, stating the first proposed amendment changes the wording in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (b) to, "If the defendant will be tried for any offense punishable as a misdemeanor." Chairman James pointed out that the language drafted by the LCB better expresses the intent of the bill. Mr. Graham concurred.

The second amendment proposed by Mr. Graham (Exhibit C) is to add "or place of employment" to section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (b), subparagraph (2), line 14, between "address" and "have." Also on page 2 of the bill, between lines 27 and 28, Mr. Graham proposes adding "The provisions of this subsection are inapplicable to any misdemeanor cases."

The next amendment mentioned by Mr. Graham is to add after section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (b), ". . . if the Court finds that the failure to timely provide the name, address or place of employment of the witness caused a substantial prejudice to the opposing party." Additionally, he explained due to the enormity of the process in misdemeanor cases, he would like the effective date to be "upon passage and approval."

Senator Care asked how the discovery process works in these cases. Mr. Graham answered it works differently in a number of counties. He said typically in misdemeanor cases, including DUIs, the attorney receives a packet containing the police report, the Breathalyzer document, the chemist’s affidavit, and so forth. Mr. Graham emphasized creation of another document with the same information that is contained in the packet is not reasonable.

John W. Helzer, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County District Attorney, concurred with Mr. Graham’s comments and added an example. He reported that in a DUI trial the previous week, the defense attorney requested a dismissal. The basis for the dismissal was not that he did not have the information, but that it was not in the format that the statute required. Mr. Helzer continued, specifically there is a requirement that the prosecutor provide a list of witnesses he or she intends to call. There was a witness that was noticed to the defendant through the discovery. It was clear that he would be a witness, but he was not actually put onto a list to be provided at a later time. Mr. Helzer explained that the court decided to grant a continuance on the basis of failing to provide a witness through the formal list presentation. The case was not reset and rescheduled, and the defense attorney announced that if there would not be a dismissal, they would go ahead with the trial. Mr. Helzer emphasized the formal notification was not necessary.

Mr. Helzer stated his office is asking for amendments regarding the requirements for notice for witnesses. He said if a defense attorney is noticed through the discovery process, the police reports and the laboratory reports that particular people are involved in the case and are likely to be witnesses, the amendments will allow that they need not be re-noticed specifically as to their participation in the trial. He added there is still a provision that if the police report and the other reports provided as discovery do not set forth a particular witness, there is an ongoing duty to disclose that the witness will testify.

Senator Care referred to the case that Mr. Graham mentioned earlier. Mr. Graham clarified that after the 1995 decision, there was a new bill in 1997 that has apparently met the challenges of the 1995 court decision. He stated S.B. 173 is actually an amendment to the 1997 bill.

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, referred to his handout, "Proposed Amendment Washoe County Public Defender — John Morrow 2/17/99" (Exhibit D). He remarked this amendment deals with an area largely unmentioned in discovery in the past, regarding cases where people are indicted rather than charged by information. Mr. Morrow stated when a person receives a letter informing the person he or she is the target of a grand jury investigation, that person frequently seeks information from an attorney. He advised that the attorney would commit malpractice if he or she offered the targeted person any advice, because the attorney would have no knowledge of the case at that point. Mr. Morrow said his amendment would remedy the situation by furnishing the targeted person with the same or a summary of the information that would be given to the attorney representing a person who is proceeding through the system by preliminary hearing and information. He surmised this will allow attorneys to competently advise people who have been notified that they are targets of a grand jury investigation.

Chairman James remarked that Mr. Morrow was addressing a completely different area in criminal discovery and proceedings. The Chairman added the bill that the attorney general and Mr. Graham have brought has to do with simplifying discovery in misdemeanor cases. Mr. Morrow replied he understood what Chairman James was saying, but in his opinion, in discovery there is a need for this amendment in order for counsel to advise clients involved in grand jury investigations. Chairman James stated the committee could not entertain Mr. Morrow’s amendment as an amendment to S.B. 173 because in his opinion, it is not germane under the rules. He said it would have to be considered in a separate context.

Mr. Wilkinson confirmed that Mr. Morrow’s amendment does not have to do with discovery, and said it would go into the chapter dealing with grand jury indictments.

Mr. Morrow pointed out that the second part of his amendment does deal with existing cases (Exhibit D). It would require disclosure to a defendant after he has been indicted and entitles him to the same information that a person has when facing a preliminary examination. Chairman James suggested the committee take this up as a separate bill draft request. He requested Mr. Morrow give his amendment proposal to Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, and stated the committee would consider it as a separate bill on Monday, February 22, 1999, when committee bill drafts are authorized.

Mr. Gibson mentioned an electronic-mail message (e-mail) he received from Clark County Special Public Defender, Philip Kohn, in which Mr. Kohn pointed out the current requirement to disclose changes of addresses of witnesses that are noticed on the arraignment information is not included in S.B. 173. Therefore, Mr. Gibson proposed the amendment in Exhibit E. A new paragraph (c) would be added to subsection 3, stating: "Parties shall make a good faith effort to provide changes of address or place of employment of witnesses they intend to call at trial as they become known to the parties." Mr. Graham stated his organization is not opposed to Mr. Gibson’s amendment.

Karen Winckler, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, testified from Las Vegas. She introduced the Clark County Special Public Defender, Philip Kohn mentioned by Mr. Gibson and JoNell Thomas, Secretary, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice. Ms. Winckler referred to her organization’s proposed amendments (Exhibit F) and added her support to Mr. Gibson’s amendment. She requested the committee review section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (b) of the bill, "If requested by the opposing party in writing, . . ." stating it appears to be burdensome, and she asked that it be deleted. Ms. Winckler observed it is more reasonable when providing the discovery, if the expert is identified, to provide the curriculum vitae at that time.

Continuing, Ms. Winckler referred to subsection 3 of S.B. 173 where it is proposed to remove the "bad faith" test from the situation in which a witness is not listed and the judge is to consider what should happen when the witness is identified "late in the game." On page 3 under subsection 5, a new test is proposed. Ms. Winckler would like the original "bad faith" test retained. She reasoned that would give the judge the opportunity to look at what the attorney or defendant did in failing to provide that name rather than reviewing the case to determine whether there is substantial prejudice. Ms. Winckler noted that usually if a witness is not noted on the original list, it is a mistake of some kind or it is additional information that is located late in the case. She also stated there is no need to add Mr. Graham’s amendment (Exhibit C).

Ms. Winckler commented that if the committee decides to use the test in subsection 5, at line 15, it orders that the court "shall" impose one of the two sanctions when a witness is not identified initially. She suggested the word be changed to "may" to give the court discretion as to what to do in these situations. Ms. Winckler also mentioned that two remedies to this situation that are mentioned previously in subsection 3, paragraphs (a) and (b) are acceptable, however she proposed adding paragraph (c), "or impose such other sanctions that are deemed appropriate by the court," such as a fine, for example.

Mr. Kohn remarked that Mr. Gibson addressed one of his concerns. Another concern of Mr. Kohn is the notice of intended witnesses 5 days from trial. He advised that his office deals exclusively with murder cases, and oftentimes he receives a list of endorsed witnesses that may be as many as 100 people. The list is not created by the attorney who is necessarily going to try the case, but by someone who has gone through all the police reports early in the case and listed every name associated with it. Mr. Kohn said the way the law is currently, 5 days out from trial both the defense and the prosecution have to narrow the lists to the people they intend to call. In Mr. Kohn’s opinion that is the proper procedure. The amendment shown in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (a), subparagraph (2) does not require the district attorney to advise those who have already been listed once. In Mr. Kohn’s opinion, 5 days out, if there is to be a uniform reciprocal discovery, both the defense and the prosecution should be required to give the names that each actually intends to call.

JoNell Thomas, Secretary, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, referred to page 2 of S.B. 173 at lines 19 and 29, where the amendment removes the filing requirement of the notices of witnesses. She inquired whether that is a mistake. Ms. Thomas remarked that often she has to reconstruct a case 5 years after the fact, and she has to go to the court files to see what actually happened in a case. Additionally, in her opinion, the filing requirement of this document will prevent disputes regarding whether the document was sent, when it was sent, and so forth.

In response to comments by the witnesses in Las Vegas, Mr. Graham stated perhaps the concerns indicated by Mr. Kohn could be addressed. Regarding the filing concerns of Ms. Thomas, Mr. Graham noted when a person is served, the server has an affidavit of service, and he is unsure of the consequences of removing the filing requirements on page 2 of the bill.

Chairman James returned to Mr. Kohn’s concern on page 2 of S.B. 173, section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (b), subparagraph (2), regarding an updated list of actual witnesses to be called rather than a laundry list of possible witnesses at the beginning of the case. He asked Mr. Graham’s opinion on that suggestion. Mr. Graham replied in his opinion, that suggestion may have merit, and he would like to see proposed language from Mr. Kohn regarding that change. Mr. Kohn affirmed he would comply with Chairman James’ request to forward proposed language to Mr. Graham.

Regarding Ms. Thomas’s proposed changes, Mr. Graham reiterated that he was unaware of any potential problems caused by removing the filing requirement on page 2 of the bill. He stated the written notices referred to are not filed, they are served on the opposing party. Chairman James inquired whether striking the word "file" in subsections 2 and 3 of the bill is necessary. Mr. Graham replied the filing requirement will remain in the bill.

In regard to Ms. Winckler’s proposed changes, Mr. Graham stated they are outside the scope of what S.B. 173 is drafted to do and potentially would change much of what was done in 1997. He remarked he would need to see proposed language from Ms. Winckler. Chairman James offered his assistance in addressing Ms. Winckler’s recommendations. The first proposed change is to section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (b) of the bill. Chairman James reiterated Ms. Winckler’s opinion that the sentence, "If requested by the opposing party in writing a copy of the curriculum vitae of the expert witness . . . ,´ is unnecessary because the curriculum vitae may be given to the opposing party at the time of disclosure.

Responding, Mr. Graham stated 99 percent of the time the opposing party will already have a copy of the curriculum vitae. His concern is that in the 1 percent of cases where the opposing party inadvertently did not receive a copy, they may move to dismiss. In Mr. Graham’s opinion, the request is not overly burdensome for the defense.

Chairman James mentioned that the next area addressed by Ms. Winckler was the proposed removal of the "bad faith" test from section 1, subsection 3 and the appearance of a new test in subsection 5 of S.B. 173. Mr. Graham remarked that in his opinion the bad faith requirement is "extremely esoteric," and by the standard placed in his amendment to subsection 5 (Exhibit C), the judge could include "bad faith" in determining whether someone has been substantially prejudiced.

The Chairman requested Mr. Graham’s opinion on replacing the word "shall" with the word "may" in subsection 5 of the bill. Mr. Graham remarked that subsection 5 is asking the court to do one of two things; to either continue the trial or to prohibit testimony providing it finds there has been a substantial prejudice. In Mr. Graham’s opinion, that gives the court a lot of latitude, and the word "shall" is appropriate. Chairman James pointed out that Ms. Winckler also requested other sanctions be added and noted that the word "shall" is restrictive. Mr. Graham agreed that it is restrictive but reiterated that it is not unreasonable. Chairman James concurred with Ms. Winckler’s opinion that the word "shall" is too restrictive in this context. In his opinion the court should have more discretion in imposing sanctions. Mr. Graham said that he does not have a problem with that. Mr. Graham agreed to Chairman James’ request that he meet with the interested parties to draft language agreeable to all concerned.

Mr. Gibson said he also noticed that the filing requirement had been removed from section 1, subsections 2 and 3 of the bill and believed the reason to be that it was redundant. Chairman James clarified that Ms. Thomas was saying leaving the filing requirement in those subsections keeps it consistent with the preceding language of the bill.

Senator Titus concurred with Ms. Winckler’s opinion that a written request to supply a copy of the curriculum vitae to the opposing party should not be required. In Senator Titus’s opinion, the district attorney’s office should supply the curriculum vitae. Chairman James said his concern is the sanction on the prosecution for forgetting to send the curriculum vitae, in the case of a redundant expert that has been used frequently, of a motion to dismiss the case for failure to follow the discovery rules.

Mr. Gibson pointed out retaining the requirement that the copy be sent to the defense or vice versa probably would not result in a dismissal because subsection 5, paragraph (a) indicates that if either side does not receive something to which it is entitled, it has the option of getting the trial continued until the document is received.

Ms. Winckler suggested adding another citation to subsection 5 to indicate that those sanctions would also apply to the failure to provide information about an expert as ordered in subsection 2. She explained that would give the court options to consider other than dismissal. Ms. Winckler asked that paragraph (b) of subsection 2 be stricken from the bill.

Mr. Graham stated he would return to another meeting of the committee with a comprehensive amendment to S.B. 173.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman James adjourned the meeting at 10:20 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jo Greenslate,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: