MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-First Session

February 21, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Wednesday, February 21, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer 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 Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Ann O’Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel

Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst

Carolyn Allfree, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Pete Bachstadt, Lobbyist, Carson/Eagle Valley Humane Society

Susan Asher, Executive Director, Nevada Humane Society

Janet Arobio, Director of Field Services, Chief Investigator, Nevada Humane Society

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender

Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association

Ann Herrington, Member, Media Partners for Pets

Mayling Chinn, D.V.M., Member, Veterinary Centers of America

Karen Wagner, Concerned Citizen

 

Chairman James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 62.

 

SENATE BILL 62:  Increases penalties for certain mistreatment of animals. (BDR 50-713)

 

Senator Ann O’Connell, Clark County Senatorial District 5, explained S.B. 62.  She said two events last October gave rise to the bill, one in which a dog, a high school mascot, was kidnapped and forced to fight a pit bull, then left to die in the middle of a football field.  The other involved a puppy that was doused with and fed acid.  Senator O’Connell presented a package comprised of Internet, newspaper, and magazine articles regarding these events (Exhibit C).

 

Senator O’Connell cited an article in the November 2000 issue of Governing magazine that reported recent passage of animal abuse legislation containing felony provisions in New York, New Mexico, Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, and South Carolina.  She said 20 states consider animal cruelty a Category D felony, and California has a felony law that includes a maximum fine of $100,000.  Governing cited a 1996 study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Research Council showing a link between domestic violence and animal abuse, and serial killing and animal abuse.

 

One purpose of S.B. 62 is to give justice to the families of victims of animal abuse, testified Senator O’Connell.  She added that, in response to concerns that a Category D felony charge was too severe for minor offenses, an amendment has been offered providing for graduated penalties.  For a first‑time offense, Category E might be appropriate, since it does not carry a prison term.  Senator O’Connell asked the committee to consider requiring a Category E offender to wear a sign indicating he or she is an animal abuser, while doing community service.

 

Pete Bachstadt, Lobbyist, Carson/Eagle Valley Humane Society, expressed his support for S.B. 62 and referred the committee to his written testimony (Exhibit D).

 

Susan Asher, Executive Director, Nevada Humane Society, said she supports the intent of S.B. 62 and the concept of the graduated penalty system, but stated she is concerned about the practicality of the bill.  She said district attorneys in the state do not have the time, manpower, or money to actively pursue felony cases for the more minor offenses.

 

Ms. Asher said many states have made provision for felony penalties where substantial bodily harm is involved and allow standard neglect cases to be considered at the misdemeanor level.  Of the 700 cases the Nevada Humane Society investigates annually, only 3 percent involve deliberate acts with intent to disfigure, maim, mutilate, or kill.  She said it is important not to be too heavy‑handed, but to have as strong a penalty as possible for egregious acts of cruelty, even for first-time offenders.

 

Chairman James agreed that some of the penalties ought to be adjusted to more appropriately fit the severity of the offenses.  He noted that keeping animals for fighting is currently only a misdemeanor.  He distinguished that from animal sports in which careful precautions are taken not to be cruel.

 

Janet Arobio, Director of Field Services, Chief Investigator, Nevada Humane Society, said she supports S.B. 62 and would like to see it amended to provide for a graduated system of penalties.

 

Senator James said he has heard that some states, to deal with fiscal impact and terms of imprisonment and to add a deterrent effect, have recategorized certain misdemeanors into civil violations.  It is possible then to proceed under the lower standard of proof, preponderance of the evidence, and impose very high fines.  He pointed out that a criminal case, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could still be brought.  But this way matters move with much greater speed through the system because things attendant to a criminal procedure, such as the deprivation of someone’s liberty as the ultimate, do not have to be dealt with.  Senator James recommended exploring the civil aspect.

 

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, said reclassifying misdemeanor offenses to felony offenses, whether Category D or Category E, would have an impact on county jails and local government, although the bill indicates otherwise in its fiscal note.  He said last session Category E was changed to allow sentencing to county jail and has resulted in a significant increase in the jail population.

 

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, explained the amendment referred to earlier by Senator O’Connell.  It deals with graduated penalties and focuses on restitution to victim owners of mistreated animals.  She presented a copy of S.B. 62 containing handwritten amending notes (Exhibit E).  She said it is important to provide restitution to the victim owner, particularly the owner of a service animal, who needs to be made whole.

 

Ms. Lusk expressed concern with the concept of high fines, saying they would tend to have an unequal impact on individuals.  Where paying a high fine is no problem for some, for others a fine of $500 is severe.  She said a high fine for a second offense might be fair, because the person will have been warned.

 

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender, said he feels S.B. 62 is a work in progress in need of amendments.  He did not think the broad-brush approach applied in the legislation is appropriate.  The person witnessing the blood sport event was being painted with the same brush as the person who organized it.

 

Mr. Morrow agreed that there is a high correlation between juvenile animal cruelty and adult violent behavior.  He suggested treatment or therapy for first‑time offenders, with subtle gradations in penalties.

 

Chairman James noted that, the way the statute is currently written, a person is guilty of the same crime whether he staged an animal fight or watched it.  He said some discretion needs to be left to the court.  That is what Nevada has traditionally done in criminal sentencing matters.  That is how cases very divergent in factual circumstances are reconciled within a statute; that is how the Truth in Sentencing law works in Nevada, he said.

 

Chairman James said that, in making some offenses civil with the ability to assess fines of some great magnitude, the judge could fashion the right fine based on many factors, even including the ability to pay.  He agreed with Mr. Morrow that intervention in the form of counseling would be important, especially for juveniles.

 

Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, spoke in favor of S.B. 62.  She suggested that these crimes might be appropriate for the certification process required for obtaining probation.

 

Ann Herrington, Member, Media Partners for Pets, spoke from Las Vegas.  She said the organization was founded to help find homes for animals, but quickly became aware of the problem of abuse.  She said the problem of animal cruelty is vast, and in the past year Las Vegas has had two high-profile cases, and she referred to the incidents described by Senator O’Connell.

 

Ms. Herrington affirmed the assertion of a link between animal cruelty and other forms of violent behavior.  She said it has been well documented but not taken seriously enough in the past.

 

Chairman James asked Ms. Herrington to fax her testimony to the committee, and she agreed to do so.

 

Mayling Chinn, D.V.M., Member, Veterinary Centers of America, testified to the prevalence of animal abuse that ranges from neglect to egregious cruelty, and the need for implementation of the measures in S.B. 62.  She said veterinarians need avenues for providing help to families dealing with animal cruelty.

 

Karen Wagner, Concerned Citizen, owner of the dog abused with acid, told of her personal experience dealing with animal abuse and how it affected her children.  She described the difficulty she had in getting the district attorney and police to respond to her telephone calls.  She said she does not think such behavior should be ignored.

 

Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 62 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 83.

 

SENATE BILL 83:  Increases amount of homestead exemption. (BDR 10-4)

 

Senator O’Connell explained S.B. 83.  She said it does one thing.  It increases the homestead exemption to $160,000 from $125,000.  She said the homestead exemption protects a family’s home from forced sale to pay debts or satisfy a judgment in a lawsuit and it is, therefore, a very important legal safeguard for Nevada’s families.  She noted that at the time she made the bill draft request the median price of homes was $135,000.  In the short interim it has gone up to $169,900 and continues to rise.

 

Chairman James noted that if there is a mortgage on a home, the equity is probably protected.  But if the mortgage is paid an owner could be forced to sell, with the creditor taking anything over $160,000.  He said this may not be the right policy for the Legislature to have, and observed that Texas grants a homestead for the entire value for up to 200 rural acres and 10 urban acres.  He said Nevada has the same urban/rural dichotomy.

 

Chairman James said the Texas model would do away with inequities associated with varying median values in different locations in the state.  He said there is some concept in the Nevada Constitution of a homestead being the actual physical thing, not just the equity in it, that is protected from creditors.

 

Senator O’Connell said the matter of the homestead was strongly debated during Nevada’s first Constitutional Convention, and it was clear from her reading that the framers meant to protect the actual physical home.

 

Chairman James commented, “And the Legislature has come up with this thing about protecting equity.”

 

Senator Care requested a copy of the debates and proceedings of the first Constitutional Convention.  He said the Texas law has been abused.  More than one Texas oilman, knowing he was facing bankruptcy, has rushed out and bought a 200-acre ranch as a way of sheltering his other assets.  He said he thinks the dollar amount seems to be a reasonable way to go.

 

Senator Washington inquired about a bill for allodial titles Senator Raymond D. Rawson introduced in 1997, S.B. 403 of the Sixty-ninth Session.  He said he has received calls regarding allodial titles, and senior citizens are concerned.  He asked if there is an update to the process concerning allodial titles.

 

SENATE BILL 403 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION:  Provides for issuance of allodial title for certain property.  (BDR 32-104)

 

Senator O’Connell responded that the office of Brian K. Krolicki, State Treasurer, is having trouble determining how to implement the law.

 

Senator Washington said an update from Mr. Krolicki would be helpful.

 

Chairman James agreed, saying it is important because the allodial title is a way that already exists for changing to a flat designation of a homestead.

 

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, expressed her concern for potential misuse of the Texas model.  She suggested indexing the homestead exemption to changes in median home prices statewide.  She acknowledged a risk for reduction in homestead value, but pointed out that allodial title, as written in Nevada law, is not a replacement for the homestead provision.  She said it is very expensive to execute and some people might not be able to afford it.

 

Chairman James said allodial title would be a way to get around the problem of abuse, because of the process involved.  People would not be able to abuse the homestead law because they have an allodial title, he said.

 

Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 83.

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                          

Carolyn Allfree,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

 

 

DATE: