ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

Seventy-First Session

March 21, 2001

The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Wednesday, March 21, 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

Ms. 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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Dean Rhoads

Senator Valerie Wiener

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau

Stephanie Licht, Nevada Wool Growers Association, Elko County

Joan Buchanan, Administrator of the Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry, State of Nevada

David Gibson, Clark County Legislative Team, NACO, Carson City, NV

Chairman Anderson stated a quorum was present, made opening remarks, and opened the hearing on S.B. 29.

Senate Bill 29: Ratifies technical corrections made to NRS and Statutes of Nevada. (BDR S-1072)

Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, explained the purpose of S.B. 29. After every session, each bill passed by the legislature must be codified and published in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). During that process of codifying statutes, various technical corrections were made to make the statutes functional during the interim. Many of the changes were nonsubstantive conflicts not resolved during the legislative session. This frequently happened toward the end of session and the Legislative Counsel Bureau agreed to resolve the conflicts during codification rather than require amendments that would slow down the legislative process. Because Article 4 Section 17 of the Nevada Constitution required all changes made to a particular section of the statute be shown in one place, the ratification bill was created to show the changes. NRS 220.120 authorized the Legislative Counsel Bureau to make certain revisions to the NRS to keep the statutes current; changes of this nature were made to bring the statutes into the current century, such as references to 19-- were changed to 20--. Approval of the ratification bill would acknowledge that the legislature agreed with the choices made by the Legislative Counsel Bureau during the interim.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 29 and entertained a motion.

ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA MADE THE MOTION TO “DO PASS” S.B. 29.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER ABSENT.

Chairman Anderson assigned Assemblyman Oceguera to present S.B. 29 on the floor on behalf of the Judiciary Committee.

Chairman Anderson introduced B.D.R. 2-988, requested on behalf of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, and read a brief summary.

· B.D.R. 2-988 – Reduces filing fees and requires court to waive court costs when petition is filed for adoption of child with special needs (A.B. 535).

Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to introduce B.D.R. 2-988.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER MADE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE B.D.R. 2-988.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER ABSENT.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 16 and welcomed Senator Rhoads to the witness table.

Senate Bill 16: Enacts provisions concerning disclosure of information in sale of property adjacent to open range. (BDR 10-56)

Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Senatorial District, was the bill sponsor. Growth in the rural areas, outside the city limits, led to the need for this bill. The open range law specified that private property owners must fence livestock out; the ranchers do not have to fence the livestock in. S.B. 16 would require real estate salesmen to disclose to prospective homebuyers that they had the responsibility to fence livestock out, not the adjacent landowners.

Chairman Anderson asked, “Would S.B. 16 clarify or diminish the accessibility to RS2477 roads?” Senator Rhoads replied in the negative.

Assemblyman Gustavson clarified that many homeowners’ associations did not allow fences to be installed as specified in their Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs); and homeowners could not put fences on the adjacent federal land.

Assemblyman Carpenter stated in some areas it would be to the benefit of the rancher and homeowners to get together and fence the subdivision; but it was a problem.

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke in favor of passage of S.B. 16. This bill would establish a system for notification of prospective homebuyers or buyers of improved lots that the property being bought was adjacent to open range. As the rural-urban interface expanded across Nevada, cultures and agricultural practices collided where people might not be aware of their requirements under open range situations. Mr. Busselman believed the process outlined in S.B. 16 was an effective means of alleviating future problems and misunderstandings with a clear understanding in advance. The Nevada Farm Bureau policy would also support that such a notification process be put in place for all agricultural practices, not just livestock and open range scenarios.

Stephanie Licht, Nevada Wool Growers and Elko County, supported S.B. 16. She believed it was a good bill to assist people coming from an urban situation, who did not realize the open range existed in state such as Nevada, to interface with the livestock producers. Many sheep producers were cattlemen as well. S.B. 16 would benefit the urban interface; it would make notification and help avoid future problems.

Chairman Anderson asked for clarification regarding the language in Section 1 Subsection 1, lines 12-14 where it stated, “Regardless of whether you construct a fence, it is unlawful to kill, maim or injure livestock that have entered this property.” Did this mean if an animal broke through a fence to enter a yard and was injured, the owner would be held responsible for the animal being injured. Mr. Busselman replied, “No.” He believed under current fence laws if an animal were to be injured after breaking through a legal fence (as required under statute), the owner would not be held liable. But at the same time, he believed the language in S.B. 16 spoke against using a shotgun or other persuasive device as a method to keep the animal from the yard.

Assemblywoman Angle asked who would be liable for the damage if an animal were to break through the fence and destroy the landscaping -- the owner of the home or the owner of the animal? Mr. Busselman stated in his review of the fence laws, he understood if a proper legal fence was constructed and livestock entered the property causing damage, the livestock owner would be liable for the “correction of the problem.”

Chairman Anderson stated a scenario where an animal was injured after coming through a fence, the livestock owner could not be found, and the animal had to be “put down.” Would the homeowner then be responsible for putting down the animal? Mr. Busselman replied lines 13 and 14 were a conclusion of the statement required by the seller to be provided to the buyer. If such a situation occurred and a person had to humanely put down an animal that had been injured, the person would be within the purview of what had to be done. The intent of the notice was to point out that the homeowner was not supposed to go out of his way to “kill, maim or injure” livestock that entered his property.

Joan Buchanan, Administrator of the Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry, State of Nevada, reported the Real Estate Division had been given the responsibility of maintaining the seller-property condition disclosure statement, which was updated at the end of every legislative session. She questioned the length of time the seller was required to keep a copy of the disclosure, but said a new form would be created for new homes as well as add it to the seller-property condition resale statement. If there were any problems, she would come back next session.

Chairman Anderson asked for clarification from the Legal Division regarding lines 12 and 13 “Regardless of whether you construct a fence…” would this create a chargeable offense for the homeowner.

Risa Lang stated the language did not create a crime, it was just language required in the notification. The statement alone did not make it unlawful.

Assemblyman Brower agreed with Ms. Lang. Did the crime exist somewhere else in statute; he believed it did.

Chairman Anderson said he had no problem progressing the bill with clarification. Mr. Busselman stated the open range statute was located in NRS 568.355. Chairman Anderson was not so concerned with the open range law as he was concerned about the destruction of the animal.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 16.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 7.

Senate Bill 7: Revises provisions concerning certain programs for children. (BDR 5-84)

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County District 3, reported S.B. 62 was being processed through the Senate Judiciary Committee, brought by Senator O’Connell, which would affect the penalties for different levels of harm to animals. Senator Wiener had been on the subcommittee with Senator Titus. Chairman Anderson said that bill might be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.

Senator Wiener, the sponsor of S.B. 7, appeared to seek support for S.B. 7 that refined S.B. 77 of the Seventieth Session, which created a program for juvenile restitution through work that included instruction in skills for employment and work ethics. Section 2 Subsection 1 would establish a “restitution through work” fund allowing the director of juvenile services to accept gifts, grants, bequests and donations. Money could only be used for the purposes of the juvenile restitution program. Section 3 would create a special fund for a program of “cognitive training and human development” for juvenile offenders. Section 5 Subsection 3(2) would not require more than 50 percent of the wages of the child be deducted to pay restitution. Senator Wiener believed it was important to split the earning to cover both “paying back” restitution to the victim as well as allowing the child to “earn a wage,” in hopes of teaching the child accountability toward the victim and the pride of employment.

As an update on S.B. 77 of the Seventieth Session, Senator Wiener reported that on February 24, 2001, Clark County Family and Youth Services officially launched the county’s juvenile restitution program named REAL – Restitution Earned, Accountability Learned. The agency was working in collaboration in a private/public partnership with the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce to ensure the success of REAL. The chamber would provide employers for juveniles in the restitution program; the goal was to place 50 youths during the first year.

Chairman Anderson asked if the Chamber of Commerce had appeared in support of S.B. 7 when the Senate Judiciary Committee heard it. Senator Wiener replied the chamber had not appeared, but she sensed their support since they were sending out letters to recruit employers. Chairman Anderson had not received any information in opposition to S.B. 7.

David Gibson, Clark County Public Defenders Office, supported S.B. 7 and also reported he had spoken with John Morrow from Washoe County Public Defenders Office, who asked him to convey his support of S.B. 7. These measures would be helpful to the people they represented as far as teaching responsibility, and also it was important to obtain the numbers from the program to track what was going on in order to do the job better.

Chairman Anderson asked, “The County doesn’t object to seeing this frozen away from their general fund, or they don’t find it to be harsh in their county practice to track these dollars separately?”

Senator Wiener replied, “They had not voiced that. If you recalled the heart of the bill, the thrust of the bill, came last session. That’s where probably any objections would come. But when I learned about this program at a juvenile justice conference prior to last session, Mr. (Kirby) Burgess, (Director of Clark County Department of Family and Youth Services), had Ginger Woods, (Victim Witness Advocate from the Clark County Department of Family and Youth Services), there as well, and I tried to get support for the bill before I offered it so I would get past that hurdle. I had met with them several times, that was the big issue getting it out of the chute the first time. I did work with Mr. Burgess about setting the 50-50 fund, and he did not offer objections to me.”

David Gibson said, “Representing Clark County, this topic has been discussed; we do support the bill. They are already doing pretty much all of the accounting measures right now, and they feel like this protection of the money helps them carry out the program better. The County does not have a problem with this.”

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 7.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 37.

Senate Bill 37: Revises provision requiring filing of annual report regarding children placed under informal supervision. (BDR 5-112)

Senator Wiener, bill sponsor, proposed changes to the requirements for filing an annual report regarding children placed under informal supervision with S.B. 37. During the interim, she was privileged to chair the A.C.R. 13 Interim Study of Juvenile Justice. That Legislative Commission Subcommittee was the continuation of the A.C.R. 57 Study Committee created by the legislature in the 69^th Session. These two committees focused on a wide range of juvenile justice issues including, but not limited to:

q Substance abuse;

q Operation of facilities, professional practices and institutional procedures;

q Youth gangs;

q Juvenile violence;

q Over-representation of minorities in facilities; and

q Alternatives to incarceration.

During the work session, the subcommittee considered many recommendations and Bill Draft Requests. The subcommittee encouraged input from juvenile justice administrators, law enforcement, educators and others involved with these issues. One such request was from the juvenile justice administrators who initially wanted to repeal the requirement for annual reporting on children placed under informal court supervision, because judges did not ask for the report. But after reviewing the request, it was decided it was important to avoid sending the wrong message to judges – that judges could not require the report. To resolve this issue, the language “upon the request of the court” was proposed in Section 1 Subsection 6. This language would give the court the discretion to request the report, and would satisfy the concerns of the administrators.

Chairman Anderson asked if there were any questions from committee members for Senator Wiener.

Chairman Anderson asked if there was any further testimony in favor or opposition of S.B. 37. There being none, Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 37.

Chairman Anderson entertained motions on the bills.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOVED TO “DO PASS” S.B. 7.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Claborn to present S.B. 7 on the floor.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO “DO PASS” ON S.B. 37.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Ohrenschall to present S.B. 37 on the floor.

Chairman Anderson stated in regards to S.B. 16 NRS 206.150 made it an offense for a person to willfully and maliciously kill, maim or disfigure any animal belonging to another person. That was where the criminality of the statute existed, and it would appear his concerns were covered in this statute. Consequently, the Chair was prepared to entertain a motion on S.B. 16.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO “DO PASS” S.B. 16.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Carpenter to present S.B. 16 on the floor.

Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 8:50 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Deborah Rengler

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: