MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 16, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:12 a.m., on Friday, March 16, 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
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Dennis Nolan (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Rebekah Langhoff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jim Nadeau, Legislative Representative, Washoe County Sheriffs Office and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, Reno, Nevada
Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, Las Vegas, Nevada
Steve Kibbe, Former Douglas County Bomb Squad Officer, Instructor, Douglas County, Nevada
John Morrow, Legislative Representative, Washoe County Public Defender, Reno, Nevada
Roll was called and Chairman Anderson advised the committee of the order in which the bills scheduled for the work session would be addressed. He noted that floor session was scheduled to begin at 10:30 that day and reminded the committee of the time constraint.
Chairman Anderson called Jim Nadeau, Legislative Representative, Washoe County Sheriffs Office and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, to the witness table and reminded him the committee was not taking testimony on bills, but may wish to call on Captain Nadeau to answer questions on A.B. 105.
Nick Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, provided the committee with a work session document that served as a guideline for the discussion on the six bills scheduled for the work session (Exhibit C).
Assembly Bill 105: Revises provisions pertaining to explosive and incendiary devices. (BDR 15-425)
Mr. Anthony stated A.B. 105 was requested by the Committee on Judiciary and was heard by the committee on February 26, 2001. Mr. Anthony provided a summary of the discussion and testimony heard by the committee (Exhibit C, pages 1-2). The proposed amendment to the bill was also provided (Exhibit C, page 6).
Chairman Anderson read the amendment to the bill in its entirety for the record (Exhibit C, page 6).
Chairman Anderson indicated he would like to hear from Steve Kibbe, a former member of the Douglas County Bomb Squad and currently a member of the Legislative Police, and requested Mr. Kibbe be summoned to the meeting.
Chairman Anderson noted Ms. Buckley and Mr. Carpenter previously expressed concern regarding the applicability of A.B. 105 to industries in the state that used explosive materials. Ms. Buckley and Mr. Carpenter both indicated the amendment satisfied their concerns.
Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, advised she was satisfied with the bill and the proposed amendment.
Chairman Anderson asked Captain Nadeau if he felt the bill and the amendment would meet the requirements of the involved agencies. Captain Nadeau indicated he had the amendment reviewed by the individuals who testified and a variety of other people, including the mining industry, and it was Captain Nadeau’s understanding that none of them had any concerns regarding the amendment and felt the amendment was consistent with the intent of the bill.
Chairman Anderson inquired if the district attorneys were satisfied that the bill and proposed amendment would allow them to prosecute cases which they were not able to prosecute in the past. Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, advised the bill would allow prosecution in cases which could not previously be prosecuted and commended the staff and the parties involved for their work in putting the bill into a useable form.
Steve Kibbe, former Douglas County Bomb Squad Officer, arrived and Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Kibbe to relay his thoughts and comments on A.B. 105 and to relate his experience as a bomb squad officer. Mr. Kibbe advised he served 26 years as a member of the bomb squad and currently instructed classes on bomb safety, disposal and handling all over the country. During that time, he responded to most major incidents in the United States, including the Oklahoma bombing, the World Trade Center bombing and the Harvey’s bombing in South Lake Tahoe.
Mr. Kibbe told the committee of a case he worked involving pipe bombs located in a house. The incident began as a pornography case, but a search warrant uncovered 18 pipe bombs, covered with BBs to act as shrapnel, and a case containing 25 pounds of black powder. The suspect claimed the pipe bombs were used for blowing up gopher holes. The district attorney had a problem with the word “intent” and the burden was placed on the sheriff to disprove the suspect’s stated intent to use the pipe bombs to blow up gopher holes. Although there were no gopher holes on the suspect’s property, the word “intent” prevented prosecution because the suspect’s stated intent could not be disproved and the matter was dismissed. Mr. Kibbe stated a pipe bomb served no practical purpose other than to kill, maim or destroy property.
Mr. Kibbe felt the amendment, which he reviewed briefly, was far superior to the initial bill. He believed removing the word “intent” from the statute would create a powerful legal system with the ability to deal with matters like the one he related.
Ms. Buckley commented she was always amazed by the quality, caliber and experience of the people who came to work for the Legislative Police. Chairman Anderson agreed.
Chairman Anderson announced he would entertain a motion on A.B. 105.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 105.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Buckley asked to have Mr. Graham on the record as to exactly how intent was left in A.B. 105.
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney Association, stated,
You do not inadvertently or without knowledge possess anything. Possession is by two ways which we talked about: Actual which we’ve got on our person and our body and we know about it, or constructive which is in our house and we’d have to show that it’s my house, my car, my utility bill. So you are not going to accidentally possess anything and be charged with this. It has to be an intentional possession. So if the guy with the pipe bombs in his closet said “Oh, I didn’t know they were there” or the child with the beer in the back seat of the car that said “Oh, dad left that in the car when he left it at home with me. I didn’t know about it” then we’ve got a possession issue otherwise we don’t.
Mr. Brower asked a question, and Chairman Anderson requested that the question and answer be specifically noted verbatim for the record,
It seems to me that the language of the bill would take care of any military issue and I just don’t know if that’s been discussed. Particularly with the amendment, and even prior to the amendment, maybe it was addressed adequately by the language. But what we don’t want, obviously, is when at some later point before this is signed by the Governor, to have somebody from Fallon or Nellis or otherwise come up and say “what were you guys thinking, this causes a problem for us.” I was just wondering if that’s been addressed.
Captain Nadeau responded
I believe that language was the intent of having the specific language “if the person is authorized by a governmental entity which has lawful control” and that deals with the military issue, it deals with bomb squad issues so that they can deal with explosives as they need to to train and deal with those kinds of things. So I think that language is the umbrella there.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Anderson asked that Ms. Ohrenschall present A.B. 105 on the floor.
Chairman Anderson advised the committee of the following three Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) that required committee introduction:
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 3‑422, BDR 15-474, AND BDR 14-525.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 148: Revises provisions regarding certain stays of court proceedings during legislative session. (BDR 1-844)
Mr. Anthony stated A.B. 148 was requested by Assemblyman Greg Brower and was heard by the committee on March 8, 2001. Mr. Anthony provided a summary of the discussion and testimony heard by the committee, together with the proposed amendment (Exhibit C, page 1).
Mr. Brower advised the committee of a further clarification to the proposed amendment which would simply clarify that a lawyer/legislator would be entitled to a stay of an action for all purposes during the legislative session, including trial, pretrial hearings, discovery proceedings, etc.
Ms. Lang indicated that discovery would not be included in the term “an action or proceeding” and the language was accordingly revised to state “the action or proceeding including any discovery or other pretrial matter involved in the action or proceeding.”
Chairman Anderson noted the committee looked at adding the language “including discovery,” but the bill drafter had suggested inclusion of more substantial language in order to make the bill more conceptually correct. Mr. Brower agreed with Chairman Anderson, and referred to Ms. Lang for the language to be used. Ms. Lang advised that the language she read to the committee was the language to be used.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 148 WITH THE AMENDMENT AS STATED BY MS. LANG.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang to repeat the amendment language. Ms. Lang indicated the language read, after “the action or proceeding” on line 6 and also on line 12, “including any discovery or other pretrial matter involved in the action or proceeding.”
Ms. Buckley suggested the amendment language address both pretrial and post-trial issues, if appropriate.
Chairman Anderson asked if the bill would preclude the closing arguments of a nearly concluded trial because the legislature went into session, and questioned whether post-trial issues should be included in the amendment language. Mr. Brower felt that A.B. 148 and the proposed amendment would allow a lawyer/legislator to postpone an appellate argument that may be scheduled during the session, and suggested that a lawyer/legislator ought to have the opportunity to postpone if the demands of the session were such that the lawyer/legislator simply could not participate in oral argument during the session.
Ms. Buckley noted, as a practical matter, a trial would have to be conducted and concluded or postponed prior to a legislative session. She stated the amendment pertained to motions after trial or an appellate proceeding after a trial.
Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang if post-trial language should be included. Ms. Lang suggested the language “any other pretrial or post-trial matters involved in the action or proceeding.”
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Mr. Brower disclosed he was a member of the bar and a member of legislature who may be able to benefit from the bill and would be affected by the legislation, however, he would not be affected to any greater extent or lesser extent than others in similar situations. Ms. Buckley and Ms. Ohrenschall made the same disclosure.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Brower to present A.B. 148 on the floor and indicated he or Mr. Manendo would take care of the amendment.
Assembly Bill 54: Revises provisions relating to time within which prosecution for certain felonies must be commenced and certain provisions concerning genetic marker testing. (BDR 14-296)
Mr. Anthony advised the committee A.B. 54 was requested by Assemblyman Bernie Anderson and was heard by the committee on February 16, 2001 and was referred to a subcommittee consisting of Mr. Manendo, Mr. Brower and Mr. Oceguera (Exhibit C pages 2-3). Mr. Anthony provided a summary of the discussion and testimony heard by the subcommittee on March 7, 2001 (Exhibit C, pages 7-9). The proposed amendment to the bill was also provided (Exhibit C, pages 10-12). The subcommittee unanimously recommended amend and do pass on A.B. 54.
Mr. Manendo thanked Mr. Brower and Mr. Oceguera for their hard work on the subcommittee and asked Ms. Lang to review the amendment with the committee.
Chairman Anderson inquired whether the related research document on statutes of limitations was sent to all the members of the committee. Mr. Manendo indicated the Research Division provided analysis on the limitations of other states and it was distributed to the committee members.
Ms. Lang advised the biggest change in the proposed amendment was removing Section 1, and replacing it with the language found in Exhibit C, page 10. The purpose for the change was that the bill as currently drafted would completely eliminate the period of limitations for particular crimes. The subcommittee agreed if a person filed a report for the crime within the current statute of limitations, the statute of limitations would be extended to 15 years. Ms. Lang noted the amendment stated the statute would be extended 12 years, and explained that if a report were filed within the 3-year period, the statute of limitations would be extended for an additional 12-year period beyond the 3-year period, which makes the statute of limitations 15 years.
Ms. Lang advised further changes were simply for clarification and added kidnapping and conspiracy to the list of crimes affected by the legislation (Exhibit C, page 11).
Mr. Collins asked whether a modification or change of a previous charge to one of the crimes listed in this legislation would extend the statute of limitations for 12 years beyond the time of the modification. He also wondered whether a charge had to be the same charge filed within the initial three-year statute of limitations and not amended into another charge to create the extension of time. Ms. Lang indicated Mr. Collins was correct.
Chairman Anderson asked John Morrow, Legislative Representative, Washoe County Public Defender, whether he had a chance to review the amendment. Mr. Morrow replied he was present at the subcommittee hearing and stated his objection was adding conspiracy simply based on the idea that there may be a plea bargain somewhere at sometime. Mr. Morrow indicated plea-bargaining was always available.
Mr. Brower felt that Mr. Collins’ previous question relating to charging might have confused the issue. He stated the bill simply required a criminal complaint be filed within the statute of limitations period, but there would be no charging until sometime later and accordingly the issue of what offense would be the subject of the prosecution’s charging was not established until sometime later.
Chairman Anderson requested Mr. Collins to restate his question so that any confusion could be addressed. Mr. Collins stated “my question about extending the statute of limitations from the three years is that you have a complaint filed and maybe it could be multiple charges or whatever, and because you run out of time you do a different charge. I think Risa answered that okay. But, so that you can’t use it for an extension of time for a charge or bring up a new charge based on that.”
Mr. Morrow responded that the statute of limitations did not apply to the filing of a police report; it applied to the filing of a criminal complaint. However, if a police report was filed during the period set forth in the statute of limitations, it triggered the extension of the statute of limitations to file a criminal complaint. Once a criminal complaint was filed, a person could be arrested 20 years later on that complaint; the statute of limitations was only a deadline for filing a formal complaint.
Mr. Brower indicated he did not have any concerns; he wanted to make sure it was clear that when the victim made a complaint the prosecution did not formally charge anybody at that point. Later in time, perhaps upon the arrest, the decision to charge a person with a certain crime was made. Mr. Morrow added that the formal filing of a criminal complaint or indictment was what “killed” the statute of limitations. Mr. Morrow explained that a victim could file a complaint with the police and the matter could hang around until the very last day of the 15-year statute of limitations. Then a criminal complaint could be filed, and a person could be arrested later.
In order to clarify his understanding, Chairman Anderson offered a hypothetical situation for analysis. He assumed a person was assaulted two years ago. At the time of the assault, the person went to the police and indicated he was assaulted. The police investigated and noted that the person had been assaulted, but they did not know who the assailant was. Accordingly, there was no filing against an individual because the police did not know who the assailant was. Later, the victim saw and recognized the assailant and learned the assailant’s name. The victim told the police the name of the assailant. The police arrested the assailant based upon the report that was filed two years. The statute of limitations did not prevent the arrest of the assailant two years ago after the report was filed. Chairman Anderson asked if the above scenario was correct. Mr. Morrow indicated Chairman Anderson was correct.
Chairman Anderson inquired if, under the same set of circumstances described above, the victim did not learn the assailant’s name until three years later, which would be beyond the statute of limitations, could the assailant still be arrested because the original complaint was filed at the time of the assault. Mr. Morrow responded that under those circumstances the assailant could not be arrested because the victim’s complaint was essentially a witness statement, not a formal complaint and the statute of limitations had run out on time to file a formal complaint. Mr. Morrow felt this situation was the reason the bill contemplated using DNA as an identifying factor.
Ms. Lang stated the bill required a written report be filed within the current statute of limitations. It did not mean a formal complaint had to be filed, which was what was currently required. Ms. Lang further clarified that if the written report was filed it would not extend the statute of limitations for other types of crimes. This bill was limited only to the crimes of kidnapping, attempted murder, and felony aggravated stalking and those were the only three crimes for which the statute of limitations could be extended by this legislation.
Mr. Collins asked, if the original crime was one of three applicable crimes and the statute of limitations was extended, when the matter was adjudicated did it have to be for the original charge or could it be plea-bargained down to a lesser crime. Mr. Morrow stated that the original applicable crime, which extended the statute of limitations, could be amended down to any other crime as agreed upon.
Mr. Brower felt the matter was clear now.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Morrow if he had reviewed the amendment and if he had any concerns with the amendment. Mr. Morrow indicated he did not have any concerns with the amendment.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 54 WITH THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR THE WORK SESSION.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Anderson thanked the subcommittee for their work on this bill and indicated he would present the bill on the floor. Mr. Manendo would handle the amendment.
Assembly Bill 34: Revises provisions governing granting of rights to visitation with child to persons other than parents of child. (BDR 11-193)
Chairman Anderson indicated A.B. 34 was posted on the work session document and the subcommittee had met twice. However, the committee was waiting for some examination of the recommendations of the subcommittee. Chairman Anderson believed the majority of the issue had been explored in order to maintain the best interest of the child, but he wanted to make sure all of the amendment language was in place before moving forward.
Assembly Bill 178: Provides various changes concerning damages that may be awarded in tort actions against certain governmental entities and their officers or employees. (BDR 3-192)
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Claborn to update the committee on the progress made by the subcommittee appointed to hear A.B. 178. Mr. Claborn advised there was no progress on A.B. 178 and the subcommittee had not yet met. Chairman Anderson noted it was important to see if a compromise could be reached and felt the dollar issue was a major hang-up for the bill. Mr. Claborn agreed that one of the big stumbling blocks was the funding.
Assembly Bill 220: Revises provisions governing duties of certain peace officers when felony is committed or attempted in their presence or in area that is within their jurisdiction. (BDR 14-141)
Chairman Anderson noted A.B. 220 was also scheduled for the work session, but indicated he wanted to wait until Mr. Nolan was present because Mr. Nolan had been asked to look at the bill. Mr. Nolan would be back on Monday. Chairman Anderson indicated he had seen some amendment language but wanted Mr. Nolan to explain the impact of the amendment to the committee.
Assembly Bill 110: Revises provisions governing summoning of jurors by justice’s court in certain counties. (BDR 6-179)
Mr. Anthony stated A.B. 110 was requested by the Committee on Judiciary and was heard by the committee on February 22, 2001. Mr. Anthony provided a summary of the discussion and testimony heard by the committee, together with the proposed amendment provided by Rick Loop, Assistant Court Administrator for the Eighth Judicial District Court (Exhibit C, pages 3, 13-16).
Chairman Anderson stated he did not have a problem with the proposed amendment but felt there were some concerns raised that should be addressed. He asked Ms. Lang to review the changes with the committee. Ms. Lang stated lines 8-10 of Exhibit C, page 14, made the bill applicable to any county with a population of 100,000 or more and removed the language regarding the jury commissioner. A new Section 3 at lines 14-17 of Exhibit C, page 14, was added to exempt a person who lived 65 miles or more from the justice court from acting as a trial juror. Ms. Lang noted there was currently an exemption in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 6.020 for jurors 65 or older who live 65 miles or more from the court.
Chairman Anderson clarified that the jury exemption in NRS 6.020(2) required both the age and the distance conditions be met, while the jury exemption in the proposed amendment only required the distance condition be met.
Ms. Lang advised the last change was found at lines 38-39 of Exhibit C, page 14, and removed the words “qualified electors.”
Chairman Anderson asked if, due to the 100,000-population element, this bill would only be applicable to Washoe County and Clark County. Ms. Lang stated the suggested changes would make the bill applicable only to Washoe and Clark County because they were currently the only counties with populations of 100,000 or more.
Chairman Anderson wondered if there were any counties in the state with a population of 80,000. Ms. McClain stated the population of Clark County was 1,400,000, the population of Washoe County was 340,000, the population of Carson City was 52,000, the population of Douglas County was 41,000, the population of Elko County was 45,000, and the population of Lyon County was 34,000.
Chairman Anderson wondered if the population requirement should be raised to 200,000. Ms. Lang advised that 100,000 should be used to maintain consistency throughout the NRS.
Chairman Anderson asked the committee if they felt the bill as amended would solve the needs of Washoe County and Clark County.
Mr. Brower did not feel that his initial concerns were alleviated by the amended language. He stated that in addition to the travel issue, a justice court jury should not include people who did not live in that town, or at least people who did not live in that town should not be forced to serve on the jury.
Ms. Buckley thought the problem was bigger in Clark County than Washoe County, and was satisfied with the amendment. She stated that if the committee wished to address Mr. Brower’s concerns, the population threshold could be raised to 400,000 or the amendment could be revised to reflect that regardless of the 65-mile exemption, a person must be exempted for travel hardships. Ms. Buckley stated that the problem, which the committee was trying to resolve with the legislation, was a real problem for Clark County.
Chairman Anderson suggested the population threshold be raised to 400,000, which would make the bill applicable only to the large urban area of the southern part of the state.
Mr. Brower stated he would support the bill if it excluded Washoe County.
Ms. Lang noted the exclusion language applicable to people who lived 65 miles from the justice court did not apply to any specific county and appropriate language should be included if the committee’s desire was to make that exclusion applicable only to certain counties.
Ms. Buckley felt the whole bill would apply to counties with populations over 400,000, not just the exemption.
Chairman Anderson noted the Jury Commissioner from the Second Judicial District indicated his support at the time of the hearing on A.B. 110. He stated he had not been contacted by anyone regarding the bill other than Mr. Loop.
Chairman Anderson stated the amendment would be changed to reflect a population threshold of 400,000 in order to process the bill.
Mrs. Angle voiced her support for the 400,000-population threshold.
Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Buckley whether she desired any change to the amendment in Section 3. Ms. Buckley believed the amendment as written was sufficient, except it would only be applicable in counties with a population of over 400,000.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 110 WITH THE AMENDMENTS BEING THOSE CONTAINED IN THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT AND ONLY APPLICABLE IN COUNTIES WITH A POPULATION OF OVER 400,000.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Anderson requested Mr. Collins present the bill on the floor.
Assembly Bill 16: Increases penalty for providing alcoholic beverage to underage person. (BDR 15-5)
Mr. Anthony stated A.B. 16 was requested by Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske and was heard by the committee on February 8, 2001. Mr. Anthony provided a summary of the discussion and testimony heard by the committee (Exhibit C, page 4). The proposed amendment to the bill was also provided (Exhibit C, page 17).
Ms. Lang told the committee Ms. Cegavske suggested mandatory community service or a mandatory fine, or both, as part of the penalty. A number for the hours of community service or the dollar amount for the fine was not suggested. Exhibit C, page 17, provided an example of community service hours and fines from the driving under the influence (DUI) statutes, and Ms. Lang advised there were similar provisions found in the graffiti statutes that required 50 to 100 hours of community service. Ms. Lang stated community service or a fine, or both, could be set by the committee as mandatory parts of the penalty.
Chairman Anderson wondered whether the judge would retain discretion in imposing community service hours and fines. Ms. Lang advised NRS 176.087 currently authorized a court to impose community service of not more than 200 hours for a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor also carried a penalty of up to six months in jail and up to a $1,000 fine. Ms. Lang stated the amendment would specifically require a judge to impose a certain amount of community service and a specific fine. Chairman Anderson clarified that the statute would not be changed if the number of hours of community service and the amount of the fine were left to the discretion of the judge.
Ms. Buckley supported the intent of the bill, but was hesitant about mandating a certain number of hours of community service and mandating a certain level of fine. She felt the judge should make that decision based on the circumstances of the case.
Mr. Carpenter asked whether the committee was required to include the penalty in the bill or if the judge could use another penalty section and apply it to the selling of alcohol to minors. Ms. Lang reiterated the current penalty, which was within the discretion of the judge, was up to 6 months in jail, up to a $1,000 and up to 200 hours of community service. The amendment required the judge to impose certain penalties when a person was found guilty of this particular crime.
Chairman Anderson noted the crime would remain a misdemeanor but the court would be required to take specific action and would not have discretion in sentencing.
Mrs. Angle asked whether the penalties applicable to the graffiti statutes were mandatory or discretionary. Ms. Lang advised the penalties for graffiti were found at NRS 206.330 and a certain number of community service hours were mandatory in addition to any other penalty.
Mrs. Angle confirmed that community service hours were mandatory in the graffiti statute and the proposed penalties under this bill would be similar.
Chairman Anderson noted the criticism in the past by judges who felt that the legislature was taking away judicial discretion and leaving judges unable to effectively fit the punishment to the crime. He reminded the committee that DUI statutes and graffiti statutes already required mandatory penalties.
Ms. Buckley believed that mandatory community service to remove graffiti seemed like poetic justice for the crime of graffiti, which was the reason the mandate was placed on the judge in the graffiti statutes. However, in cases of selling alcohol to minors, it was possible that someone simply made an honest mistake and the judge should retain the discretion to punish those people as he deemed appropriate.
Mrs. Angle noted there was no judicial opposition to A.B. 16.
Ms. McClain felt discretion should be left with the judges, especially in cases such as Ms. Buckley described. Additionally, if the crime was left as a misdemeanor instead of a gross misdemeanor, she did not see a need for the bill.
Mr. Carpenter stated judges should already know they have the option of giving community service and/or a fine and perhaps all that was needed was a reminder to the judges that they do have the option.
Mr. Collins felt the only reason to mandate community service was to ensure that some governments which were more inclined to fine, actually required community service. Mr. Collins stated that if the committee was not going to mandate community service, there was no need to process the bill.
Chairman Anderson advised the committee that Ms. Cegavske did not want to remove the judge’s discretion. He indicated he would not take a motion on the bill in order to allow time to work out some of the questions, but he would put A.B. 16 to the next work session.
Chairman Anderson noted the committee had been provided with a comparison of S.B. 185, S.B. 310, A.B. 133, A.B. 81 and S.B. 89, which were construction defect legislation currently being considered (Exhibit D). The committee would hear construction defect legislation and Chairman Anderson felt the information would prove useful.
Chairman Anderson reminded that the committee meeting on Monday would begin at 8:30 a.m. and all other hearings next week would begin at 8:00 a.m.
Assembly Bill 21: Requires court to order person convicted of second offense of driving under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance within 7 years to attend program of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs. (BDR 43-868)
Due to time constraints there was no discussion of A.B. 21.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:17 a.m.
Rebekah Langhoff
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: