MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
April 25, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:10 a.m. on Wednesday, April 25, 2001. 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
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Greg Brower
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Barbara Buckley (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Jon Porter, Clark Senatorial District 1
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ron Cornell, Families of Murder Victims
Cindy Mowen, Families of Murder Victims
David Mowen, Families of Murder Victims
Gemma Waldron, Nevada District Attorneys Association
Chief Justice A. William Maupin, Supreme Court
Associate Justice Robert E. Rose, Supreme Court
Chairman Anderson made opening remarks and noted a quorum was present.
A copy of a letter (Exhibit C) to Assemblyman Wendell Williams was shared with committee members. The letter was the result of a vote taken during the Assembly Committee on Judiciary meeting on April 12, 2001, on A.B. 500 directing the Attorney General’s Office to conduct a study on racial profiling in traffic stops.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 234 and acknowledged Senator Jon Porter, District 1, as he approached the witness table.
Senate Bill 234: Revises provisions governing statements of victims of crimes at sentencing hearings. (BDR 14-1079)
A group called “Families of Murder Victims” brought the need for S.B. 234 to Senator Porter’s attention. The bill would allow victims of crime or family members of crime to give testimony concerning their feelings during the penalty phase of a trial; victims could address any statement by the defendant prior to sentencing.
Ron Cornell, Families of Murder Victims in southern Nevada, said unless a person was a victim it was hard to understand why S.B. 234 was so important. There was something wrong with allowing a convicted criminal the last word; this deeply influenced the judge and/or jury involved. Mr. Cornell asked that the victim be heard last and not the criminal.
Cindy Mowen, Families of Murder Victims, spoke from experience. She stated that during the trial, she was allowed five to ten minutes to give testimony and was allowed to bring one picture that she would not get back. It was insulting to have the criminal then be given unlimited time and numerous props to speak on their behalf. The victims needed the right to speak last.
David Mowen, Families of Murder Victims, also spoke from experience and called attention to the fact that S.B. 234 pertained to the penalty phase of the trial; the criminal had already been adjudicated as guilty. It was not fair that after the victim or victim’s family emotionally expressed feelings about the victim, the criminal and his family testified what a wonderful person that individual (the criminal) was; and that was the last information a jury heard before leaving the courtroom to deliberate. Mr. Mowen was not there to speak just for himself, but for those who would experience this in years to come. He asked to please allow the victims who had been touched by tragedy to speak last; to allow the jury to hear the victim last, not the murderer.
Gemma Waldron, Nevada District Attorneys Association, supported S.B. 234. Currently the order of testimony was at the judge’s discretion; she agreed whoever got the last word had a serious impact on the judge and/or jury. Ms. Waldron believed, since the state had the burden of proof, the state and victim should have the last word.
Chairman Anderson noted the bill stated the victim could be represented “personally, by counsel or personal representative”; was it a choice of one, not all three? Could this be a “parade” of people? Ms. Waldron said generally the prosecutor speaks; then a victim, if he was still alive; the immediate family, if the victim was dead; sometimes a child victim; and/or a parent on behalf of a child. Chairman Anderson asked if there was a limit to how many family members could speak. Ms. Waldron said it depended on the type of trial, but it was at the judge’s discretion. Chairman Anderson asked if S.B. 234 was taking judicial discretion away. Ms. Waldron believed S.B. 234 gave the court direction as to the order evidence was presented; but it did not limit the court.
Chairman Anderson asked Senator Porter if the issue had been discussed on the Senate side. Senator Porter replied, “No.” He understood what was being said; it was not the intent of S.B. 234 to limit the ability of the judge to make certain decisions, he believed what S.B. 234 did was allow a procedure for providing the information and give the families a voice.
Senator Porter said while protecting those that were “the least among us,” many times families were overlooked. S.B. 234 was an example where families had a right and a responsibility to be part of the process.
Chairman Anderson said S.B. 234 was a stride toward victim rights. Chairman Anderson called attention to the fact that S.B. 234 dealt with a situation where the trial phase of innocence or guilt was over; the determination had already been made for the guilty individuals and this was the sentencing phase of the process after conviction.
Chairman Anderson asked for further testimony. There being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 234.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.C.R. 11, although there was no one available to speak in support of S.C.R. 11.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 11: Endorses creation of business courts in Second and Eighth Judicial Districts through adoption of court rules developed by Business Court Task Force. (BDR R-253)
Chairman Anderson recessed the meeting to gather witnesses.
Chairman Anderson reconvened the meeting with a quorum present.
Chief Justice William Maupin was joined by former Chief Justice and current Associate Justice Robert Rose, who was a primary proponent for the business court concept and worked with the interim study committee to create business court dockets both in Washoe and Clark Counties. S.C.R. 11 would result in a dedicated position for business courts in the two large counties. Currently, existing district court judges had been dedicated as part of a docket control measure to rotate in-and-out of the position to handle business matters. If S.C.R. 11 created these positions, lawyers from the private sector could be encouraged to run for those special positions.
Associate Justice Rose said, in cooperation with the interim study on business, the business court process was established by the court system. The business court would accomplish two things: (1) improve the business climate in Nevada and (2) improve the attraction Nevada would have to businesses outside the state. One of the major concerns for incoming businesses was if there were courts to handle disputes “predictively and quickly.” It was believed if the suggestion was brought to the interim study committee, a task force could be formed with lawyers and laypeople to come up with a plan that would work. The plan was proposed to the interim study committee, who signed off on the idea, the business court task force was formed and within six months presented a plan to the legislature and the courts. There were three ways to create a business court: (1) amend the constitution, but that would take five or six years; (2) legislation directing the creation of a business court, but would it “square” with the constitution or violate any separation of powers; and (3) the court themselves changing their rules, which could be done in a short period of time. The task force chose to change the rules to create one court in Reno and two courts in Las Vegas dedicated to business matters; business court started in January 2001. Those business courts were a positive component of the court system in Nevada; they were working very well, handling 10 cases a month in Washoe County and 20 cases a month in Las Vegas.
Chairman Anderson asked if district court judges were moved to a special calendar, which would impact the other judges, was that the reason for adding more judges?
Associate Justice Rose believed there was so much work, business had a special need just as family or probate court had special needs; by addressing that special need it actually made the process better. If it worked properly, it should be a “win-win” situation.
Chief Justice Maupin said business disputes were very disruptive when they interrupted a general jurisdiction judge’s regular calendar. The request for new judges in Clark County could be directly attributed to the 4,000 to 5,000 people moving into Clark County every month, which were reflected in the general increase in the caseloads in Clark County. The request for an additional judge in Washoe County had to do with the increase in the family division caseload. Problem-solving courts such as the family court, drug court, mental health court concept, and business court created efficiency within the process.
Associate Justice Rose reported Nevada had the only business court on a statewide basis west of the Mississippi; that could be viewed as an attraction for business on a national level.
Chairman Anderson asked if it created a problem to practice in front of a single judge; could it become burdensome in a difficult case. Associate Justice Rose said the same situation occurred in family court as well. But a litigant always had the right to preempt a judge, pay the fee and another judge would be assigned; but the choices were restricted for good reason.
Chairman Anderson asked for further testimony. There being none, Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.C.R. 11.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 9:16 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: