MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
April 26, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:15 a.m. on Thursday, April 26, 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. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Barbara Buckley (Excused)
Mr. Tom Collins (Excused)
Mr. Dennis Nolan (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Sandra Albrecht-Johnson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ben Graham, Legislative Liaison, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association
Laurel Stadler, Director, Lyon County Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
George T. Crown, Compensation Officer, Victims of Crime Program
Chairman Anderson declared that a quorum was present. He requested persons who wished to testify to sign-in at the door.
Senate Bill 263: Authorizes court to sentence person convicted of misdemeanor to make donation of money to charitable or educational organization under certain circumstances. (BDR 15-473)
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 263 and called upon Mr. Ben Graham, Legislative Liaison, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association (NDAA), to introduce the bill. Mr. Graham stated that Clark County received approximately 45,000 misdemeanor cases per year. He explained there were misdemeanor crimes that were not very significant criminal acts, but were not to be dismissed without punishment. He indicated that the courts had previously ordered persons who appeared before them on such misdemeanor charges and had no previous criminal record to sometimes be admonished to avoid trouble for a period of time, go to rehabilitation schools or programs, and make charitable contributions to organizations such as Safe Nest. Mr. Graham also noted the donations would be given to organizations that were appropriate for the type of offense that was committed. The Commission on Judicial Discipline, which at the time was chaired by Mr. Leonard Gang, challenged the practice of such sentences. They concluded that it was not allowed by the statutes and therefore should not continue.
Mr. Graham summarized that S.B. 263 would authorize the courts to practice as they previously had, namely to sentence persons convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes, under certain circumstances, to make monetary donations to charitable or educational organizations. He clarified the intent of the bill was not to minimize mandatory sentences for acts such as driving under the influence (DUI), domestic violence, or other crimes that required mandatory sentences. It was to explicitly authorize the courts, through statutes to practice as they had previously. He assured the committee that the concerns about the decrease in the income from fines, which would otherwise be imposed, were outweighed by the merits of the bill.
Chairman Anderson inquired if the bill would result in sentencing practices returning to the level prior to the decision from the commission or if the practice of requiring monetary donations would actually increase if S.B. 263 were passed. Mr. Graham believed that the practices would return to previous levels, and he did not foresee an increase. He explained the practice of sentencing persons to make monetary donations to charitable and educational organizations was to be used as a diversion. He dispelled the opinions that the bill was a rich person’s bill. He stated that the persons who appeared on the types of offenses covered by S.B. 263 would often appear without an attorney. He explained the court would often work something out with the offenders to avoid having the crime placed on their records. As such, they would be required to make donations to charitable and educational organizations as a diversion and a deterrent to committing the crime again.
Chairman Anderson requested clarification as to how persons, who had not yet been convicted, would be sentenced to make the donation. Mr. Graham referred the committee to page 2, line 29 of S.B. 263. He stated that was the section that addressed the offender who had not yet been convicted. He noted that page 3, line 34, also dealt with the offender who had not yet been convicted. Chairman Anderson clarified that if a person was convicted of the use of a controlled substance, they would still be subject to periodic testing. Mr. Graham responded the only intent of S.B. 263 was to allow sentencing to include the diversions of monetary donations and/or community service hours. He stated that it would not change any other existing law. Chairman Anderson inquired if persons would still appear before drug courts and victim impact panels and be placed in treatment programs. Mr. Graham assured the committee that process would remain.
Mr. Carpenter observed it would be necessary to remove DUI offenders from S.B. 263. He stated if DUI offenders were not removed from the bill, it would be impossible to determine whether it was the first, second, or third offense since there were no any convictions on record. Mr. Graham responded the bill would require further scrutiny, because it was not the intent of the bill to provide a legal loophole for DUI offenders. He pointed out that if a DUI case were not provable, it would possibly be lowered to a lesser charge and then negotiated to require monetary donations to charity. He requested that an amendment be drafted to exclude DUI and domestic violence offenders from S.B. 263.
Chairman Anderson clarified the intent of the bill was to overturn the decision from the Commission on Judicial Discipline. He expressed concerns that judges might tend to favor certain charitable organizations and neglect others. Mr. Graham responded the bill actually set guidelines as to what organizations would be eligible, as specified under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 364A.1525. He noted there were no previous guidelines for the judges to follow.
Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, stated that S.B. 263 would not affect the DUI statutes or any other offenses that had mandatory sentences set forth in the NRS. She pointed out that NRS 193.150 set forth the penalty for misdemeanors and noted that it already had a provision for offenders to work for the benefit of the community in lieu of part of the sentence. Ms. Lang clarified that, when there was a specific sentence set forth in the statutes, it would override more general statutes, such as S.B. 263. She explained that Sections 2 and 3 of the bill included the language “except as otherwise provided in another specific statute.” She also noted that all of the sections of the bill dealt with a “convicted person.” As such, a person would have to be first convicted to be subject to the provisions of the bill.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged the concerns raised by the committee and concerns by some of the organizations had been addressed. Mr. Graham agreed the NDAA had the same understanding of the bill as Ms. Lang.
Ms. Laurel Stadler, Director, Lyon County Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), voiced her concerns with S.B. 263. She explained the issue of reduced sentences for persons convicted of DUIs had already been discussed; however, Ms. Stadler expressed concern that judges could utilize S.B. 263 to allow a DUI offender to make a monetary donation in lieu of community service. Ms. Lang explained that she was not knowledgeable of the common practices of the judges in that regard, but felt if a statute set forth a mandatory sentence, a judge would not utilize a more general statute such as S.B. 263. She speculated if an exception would be inserted in S.B. 263, further review of the statutes would have to be made to list all of the exceptions throughout the NRS.
Chairman Anderson clarified that, under the Constitution of the State of Nevada, in order to prevent offenders from being incarcerated due to their inability to pay fines, the judges could allow them to perform community service. He also clarified that judges would not have the option to sentence a convicted offender under S.B. 263 for a crime that had a mandatory sentence set forth in another statute. Ms. Lang agreed. Ms. Stadler stated that MADD had never received court-sentenced donations.
Chairman Anderson clarified the practice of sentencing persons to make donations to charitable and educational organizations were more common in Clark County than in any other county. He indicated the committee would not pass the bill forward without the consent of Ms. Stadler and until she had the opportunity to discuss the bill further with Ms. Lang, Committee Counsel. Seeing no additional witnesses, he closed the hearing on S.B. 263.
Senate Bill 282: Removes certain limitations on amount of compensation that may be provided for loss of earnings and support and for funeral expenses of certain victims of crime. (BDR 16-539)
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 282. Mr. George T. Crown, Compensation Officer, Victims of Crime Program, introduced S.B. 282. He explained the purpose for removing the limitations on the amount of compensation was to allow the Board of Examiners the flexibility to choose the amount. He stated it would be more efficient for the Board of Examiners to set the amounts of compensation as opposed to having it set by statute. Chairman Anderson inquired if there was additional support for the bill when it passed through the Senate. Mr. Crown clarified that he did not testify before the Senate; however, the bill passed there without opposition.
Assemblyman Brower requested clarification of the compensation of victims provided by statute. Mr. Crown explained that the Victims of Crime Program was funded by offenders through DUI fines, bail-bond assessments, and restitution. He stated there was an eligibility process for persons to receive benefits through the Victims of Crime Program, which required them to be innocent victims of crime. He explained there was a $50,000 maximum claim benefit that had several components. It was comprised of wage loss compensation, $300 a week for a one-year period. In cases of homicide or death, the program provided $2,500 reimbursement for funeral expenses, and paid medical bills, reimbursement for broken eye glasses, and provided counseling. Mr. Brower requested the number of victims who received benefits from the state through the program over the last year. Mr. Crown explained he did not have the statistics; however, they could be retrieved from Las Vegas. He indicated the Reno office alone processed approximately 400 claims per month, of which only about 50 were approved per month.
Mr. Brower inquired how the Victims of Crime Program received funds from the offenders. Mr. Crown responded there were several sources, including an assessment of $22 per bail bond, portions of the DUI fines, and prisoner restitution. Mr. Brower inquired how the victims’ ability to pursue civil remedies from the offender was affected by receipt of benefits from the Victims of Crime Program. Mr. Crown answered the victim could sue the offender. He explained the program was subrogated and recovered a portion of the civil remedy from the victim, if they won compensation through civil remedies. Mr. Crown agreed. Chairman Anderson indicated that there were some Assembly bills that addressed similar issues. He indicated that Judge Adams of the Second Judicial District had expressed concerns about parolees that did not pay their restitution, which left only the civil remedy to be sought by the victim.
Chairman Anderson called for any persons to testify either in support of, against, or neutral to the bill. There being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 282 and called for a motion.
assemblyman brower moved to do pass s.b. 282.
assemblyman manendo seconded the motion.
the motion passed unanimously BY THOSE PRESENT. aSSEMBLYMEN cOLLINS AND NOLAN AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Mr. Brower to introduce on the Assembly floor.
The Chair recognized that students from Carson High School were in the audience. He answered their questions and explained the functions of the Judiciary Committee.
Assembly Bill 133: Makes various changes concerning construction, constructional defects and common-interest communities. (BDR 3-667)
Chairman Anderson indicated that he had hoped to hear from the parties that were involved in developing proposed amendments to A.B. 133. He explained that they had not been cooperating with each other. The committee discussed upcoming legislation and its schedule for the next couple of weeks.
Since a compromise had not yet been reached on A.B. 133, Chairman Anderson indicated that it would probably die on the Chief Clerk’s desk. Mr. Carpenter inquired if a compromise would not be reached on the construction defects bill, and if it died, would there be any bills coming from the first House that dealt with the same issues. Chairman Anderson responded there was a bill in the Senate Committee on Commerce that addressed similar issues with construction defects. He explained that it would be possible to remove A.B. 133 from the Chief Clerk’s desk to pass through the first House, but he indicated he preferred for the committee to receive a presentation on the bill and its amendments before it was brought to the floor.
The Chair recognized there were students from the Churchill County High School Young Republicans Group in the audience. He answered their questions and explained the functions of the Judiciary Committee.
Chairman Anderson recessed the meeting at 8:59 a.m., to reconvene later in the evening for a presentation on A.B. 133.
The meeting reconvened at 7:23 p.m., Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The Chair declared that a quorum was present.
Chairman Anderson explained he had hoped that a report about the compromise on A.B. 133 would be presented to the committee. He stated that a compromise had not been reached, and the parties involved did not yet honor their promise to the committee to have the compromise presented. He indicated that the prospects of the bill were grim, and it would probably die on the Chief Clerk’s desk if a presentation would not be made to the committee the next morning. He clarified the parties involved had made little progress incorporating the provisions that the committee deemed would be necessary to include in the bill, such as a screening mechanism to assist homeowners through the maze to get their construction defects properly fixed. He recognized the high hopes of the committee to have the bill in the condition for them to support and pass, and he was aware of their disappointment that a compromise had not yet been reached.
Mr. Claborn stated his wish to pass the bill for his constituents, close the loopholes, and help the homeowners. Chairman Anderson agreed and noted that the only other option, if the compromise was not reached, would be to work with a bill that originated in the other House.
Chairman Anderson called for questions from the committee. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sandra Albrecht-Johnson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: