MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 20, 2001
The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:40 a.m., on Tuesday, March 20, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Maurice Washington
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
Senator Valerie Wiener
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Ann Bednarski, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ron Cornell, President, Families of Murder Victims
David Mowen, Member, Families of Murder Victims
Cindy Mowen, Member, Families of Murder Victims
Gemma Greene Waldron, Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney, and Nevada District Attorneys’ Association
Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney
Jim Weston, Deputy Chief, Detective Division, Police Department, City of Reno, and Chairman, Advisory Commission on Sentencing
John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender
Roy W. Leo, Supervising Compensation Officer, Victims of Crime, Hearings Division, Department of Administration
Senator James:
We have a number of bills today that I grouped into two categories. There are a couple of bills dealing with victims of crime and three dealing with committees on criminal justice. Even though it looks as if there are a lot of bills on the agenda, we are going to consider three of them together.
We will start with the victim’s bill this morning. Senate Bill (S.B.) 234 was requested by Senator Porter.
SENATE BILL 234: Revises provisions governing statements of victims of crimes at sentencing hearings. (BDR 14-1079)
Senator Porter:
Families of Murder Victims have presented four or five different areas it felt would help with the tragedy of these families. They would like to speak about some of their concerns.
Ron Cornell, President, Families of Murder Victims:
As you know there are several issues we would like to speak on. Senate Bill 234 gives victims the opportunity to speak last during the impact statement.
Unless you are a victim, it would be hard to understand why this bill is so important to us. There is something wrong with a system that allows this person, who has killed your loved one, to have the opportunity to come forth and speak his piece of mind after you have given your impact statement to the judge or jury during which you have poured out your heart about what this person has done to you and how he or she has destroyed your life. His family and his friends get to hear him last. As victims, we feel this strongly influences a jury and a judge. There is something wrong with the fact that the person who took our loved one’s life, who heard the last words of our loved one, will still get the last word. In the case of my son Joey Cornell, the last words he heard were the obscenities sworn at him by this 37-year-old man, and then he died. After I make my impact statement, this man will have the opportunity to speak the last word, again. There is something wrong with that. In S.B. 234 we are asking the committee to give the families of those who have lost loved ones the opportunity to have the last word; to have that last influence on the judge or jury. We are the most deeply affected.
One of the other issues we have spoken to Senator Porter about is that the accused’s past should be brought out when the defense brings out the victims past. In a self-defense case the victims’ past can be drug out in court, but because of the defendants rights there are many limits on what can and cannot be said. What about the rights of the victim and the victim’s family?
All we are asking is to have equal rights between the victim and the defendant, so we are playing with an even deck. Allow the accused’s past to be brought up, such as a violent history, so the jury can hear why this person may have done what he or she has been accused of doing.
Mr. Cornell:
We would also like to have an amendment added to S.B. 234 limiting the number of appeals permissible in a murder trial. When someone receives a murder conviction that person has an immediate appeal available, then there are several other appeal process that person can go through.
Folks, my son did not get a chance to appeal. The man came out of his car and started shooting. He did not get a chance to say, “Hold on, time out, I want to make an appeal.” It was done and over with, and this person has the opportunity, once there is a conviction, to make several appeals.
Families of Murder Victims would also like to have a firm interpretation of the laws that allow overturning murder cases. The laws state only a specific reason can be used to overturn murder convictions. We have had several members within our organization, Families of Murder Victims, that have had cases overturned because of interpretations, hearsay, or something along those lines. There was no new or strong evidence that would support the overturning of these cases. The only thing that should overturn a conviction is juror misconduct or new evidence that would prove this person is innocent. Convictions should not be overturned because someone made an incorrect statement during the trial process.
Another issue Families of Murder Victims would like to discuss is mandatory notification to Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) for those aliens, legal or illegal, that have been convicted of gross misdemeanors or more severe crimes. The reason I am saying “mandatory” notification is that I have been in courtrooms where the judge says, “If I see you before me again, I will notify immigration services.” This is a hand slap, a threat that is never followed through. You see it constantly in courts. We would like to see something on the books that says, “If you commit this crime, INS is going to be notified.” Then this becomes an INS problem. No longer will the law enforcers be able to say, “Well, this one got away.”
Mr. Cornell:
Along with the limited number of appeals, we would also like to have a time limit for appeals. A time frame that would limit how long the defendant has to file an appeal, so families are not drug back into court 6 to 10 years down the road, because someone has been studying law books while in prison and suddenly discovers there is another reason to go back to court. Every time we go back to court, we have to relive the horror and pain. It is impossible for us to move on with our lives.
These are some of the issues we have that are destroying us as families. Families of Murder Victims would like to have the last word during the sentencing hearing. We would like to have the number of appeals limited. We would like to have a limited time frame on the appeal process. We would like mandatory notification to INS. We would like the prosecutor to be able to bring up the defendant’s past when the victim’s past is drug through the court.
David Mowen, Member, Families of Murder Victims:
On August 14, 1998, our lives were changed forever. My son and his roommates had their home broken into by three individuals with guns. These three individuals went into the home early in the morning to rob it and take any valuables they could find. During the process they ransacked the home, tied up all the boys, duct taped them, placed them on the floor, and beat them. After an hour or two of these activities, each of the boys was shot in the back of the head. This happened on a Friday. On the following Tuesday one of the individuals was arrested. Within the next 2 weeks, the other two individuals were arrested.
My wife and I have spent about 26 months of our lives in and out of courtrooms, a place I was unfamiliar with until this time. We have had three separate trials. Each trial produced a verdict of guilty on all 13 charges. These charges were for kidnapping, murder, burglary, and robbery.
At the conclusion of each trial we went into a penalty phase. In this phase, everything is recapped. It is at this point that the truth comes out about the murderers, about what kind of individuals these murderers are, and about the activities, these murderers have been involved in throughout their lives. In our case, every one of the killers had been in and out of the judicial system. The day before murdering my son and his friends, one of the murders has been in court. These killers had been accused of other murders, bank robberies, casino heists, and many other things that will probably never become known.
During the penalty phase families of the victims are asked to express their loss in 5 minutes. We have 5 minutes to say what our loved ones mean to us. We are very restricted in what we are allowed say. We cannot say anything at all in regards to what type of restitution or what kind of penalty we would like to see. After we have poured our hearts out and laid it on the line, the families of these murderers are able to come forward to beg and plead for these killer’s lives. All three cases in my son’s murder were death penalty cases. The family members of the murderers were able to speak about how wonderful these individuals were, and that they perhaps just made a few bad choices. That is the last thing the jury hears prior to going into deliberation.
Mr. Mowen:
I would ask all of you to consider being in the shoes of the victim’s families for a moment. If it were your mother, father, brother, sister, son, or daughter that spent the last 5 minutes of their lives in this environment, would you want the last thing the jury heard before going into deliberation to be how wonderful these killers are? Or would you want the jury to hear the truth from a loved one? Would you want the jury to hear that each and every day it is a challenge to get up and get going? Every day is a challenge to keep doing the best you can with your life.
I am here to speak on behalf of my son, his friends, and the many other people who are simply beaten up too much to come here and speak to you. Until you have walked in our shoes and lived our lives for even 1 day, you could never possibly understand what we are going through. It is unquestionably the most difficult thing anyone could ever face.
My wife and I are asking this committee to take some time and make the best decision. We are doing what we can to prevent further episodes like this from happening.
Another of the issues I would like to talk to you about is the accused’s past. The jury does not know about the accused’s past until the penalty phase happens. So, the jury members do not know what type of individual they are making a decision about until the penalty phase of the trial. I wish you could see the reaction on some of their faces when they realize what they have been looking at for the last 3 weeks, and when they realize the previous convictions in which these murderers have been involved. These are activities the criminals have been involved with, been accused of, and even found guilty of. These things need to be brought out at the very beginning of the trial so all sides know exactly what is happening.
Mr. Mowen:
The next issue is an amendment regarding the evidence in some cases in which the trial of an individual can be reheard or overturned, due to a technical error. The fact remains that our loved ones are dead and these individuals have committed murder, yet they are let go. Whether someone did not dot the “i” or cross the “t” truly has no bearing on the guilt of the individual committing the murder. The last thing any of us wants to see is someone who has been accused of a crime and found guilty of a crime if he or she did not do it. All we are asking is to have the punishment carried out when an individual is found guilty of the crime and is clearly guilty of that crime. We do not want to have it drug out for years and years.
Donte Johnson was identified as the individual who pulled the trigger in the murder of my son and his friends. Since his sentencing in October of last year, he has been incarcerated in Ely State Prison. However, he was brought to Las Vegas in early March of this year on a different attempted murder trial. On Thursday of that week the trial was continued. The defense attorney asked to have him kept in Las Vegas for an additional week so they could get more information from him regarding the attempted murder trial, which will be heard again in August. On that Saturday of the same week, Donte Johnson and Reginald Johnson, (no relation) grabbed an individual at the Clark County Detention Center, threw this person off the second floor mezzanine to the first floor. This individual did survive.
I have a couple of concerns about this incident. First of all, the individual that was thrown off the second floor could truly have been an individual who was there for the wrong reason. It could have been anyone arrested and placed in the detention center overnight until all the facts came out. This person could have been killed.
In my mind, the reason Donte Johnson did this is that he is experiencing some harsh challenges in the Ely State Prison. He has been given the death sentence and he will spend most of his time in the Ely State Prison in a 6-foot by 10-foot cell until his execution is carried out. He had decided when he came to the Clark County Detention Center to carry out this act, which will allow him to spend more time in the Clark County Detention Center. According to information given to me Dante Johnson pretty much ran the Clark County Detention Center for almost 2 years.
We need to get these people behind bars, locked up so they cannot hurt anyone ever again.
Mr. Mowen:
I would also like to talk about the number of appeals allowed by law. My son and his friends did not have an appeal process. Donte Johnson, Terrell Young, and Sikia Smith simply killed them on their way out of the house. They should be allowed only one appeal and that appeal is to the Lord. These men have been convicted so let us carry out their sentence. Let us get tougher on crime, not weaker.
The last issue I would like to address is the mandatory reporting to Immigration and Naturalization Services. Individuals from other countries should not have any extras, nor should they have any less. If they have been convicted of a crime, take them out of the country. They do not deserve to be part of the United States.
My biggest concern regarding these three convicted criminals is for the people who work in the Ely State Prison, for the health staff, the food staff, and the guards. Their lives are truly at risk from these individuals.
Cindy Mowen, Member, Families of Murder Victims:
I would like to relay some of my experience with the murder of my son. The biggest concern I have is the victim impact statement. I can remember clearly the day we were taken into the district attorney’s office where we were instructed on what we could and could not say in this trial. I have the original piece of paper that outlines four different areas I could address in my 5-minute speech. In that 5 minutes, I was supposed to give my victim’s personal character; I was to speak about the nature and impact of the crime; I was to talk about the loss to the victim’s family and to society. Lastly, I was told I could not express what I needed to express. We were instructed as to what we could and could not say.
My husband and I worked on this very hard before the first victim impact statement. We gave our statements to the court that day, which were limited to how many speakers could speak since there were four victims and three murderers. In the three different cases, there were times I could speak, but my husband could not speak or vice versa. Once you pour out your heart in your 5 minutes and try to tell these strangers what a wonderful child you had and what a loss to society he or she is, the court calls a recess. Then the accused family gets to enter. During one of the trials, the killer’s mother was able to bring props to the witness stand. We were instructed that we could bring one picture. One picture is all that I could use to express my loss. The accused’s family could bring in trophies from his past or videotapes of what he had done and other such things. The murderer’s family was not limited to 5 minutes. I am to express my loss in 5 minutes, but the murderer’s family could bring all kinds of things and speak as long as they wanted. It was so devastating. It is not fair. It is not fair. It crushes you as a parent. We have gone through this so many times. I know our case is different from most because of the three different trials. It just gets worse each time.
My heart goes out to any other person who has to go through this. One time is devastating. It is not right, we are the true victims in this, and we should be treated as the victims, not as church mice that have to sit in a corner. I really would like to see this changed.
My son was executed. I have nightmares every night of what happened to my child. I cannot tell you the pain our family has gone through. Something has to change. We, as victims, have no rights in courtrooms, and I understand it is the murderer’s trial, but victims should also have rights.
Mr. Cornell:
I moved to southern Nevada in June 1961. I grew up here, I have been part of this community for almost 40 years. I consider Las Vegas my home. As with all large cities there will be growing pains. There will be an increase in crime. We are coming before you as victims because the penalties for crimes are getting soft. We need to get tougher. We need to let the community know we are not going to tolerate this anymore.
There have been a rash of murders recently, and the community is in an uproar. Crime is getting out of hand. The only way this is going to stop is if punishment is used as a deterrent, instead of a hand slap or a verbal warning. Please help us put a stop to some of these criminal things, help us put a stop to crime.
Gemma Greene Waldron, Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney, and Nevada District Attorneys’ Association:
The Nevada District Attorneys’ Association is in support of S.B. 234 for many of the reasons the prior speakers have mentioned. I have been involved in sentencing during which the defendant is allowed to go first and the victim’s impact statement comes after and vice versa. I have been involved where the defendant goes first, the victim’s impact statement comes after, and then the defendant is allowed to have a rebuttal.
I think the changes made in S.B. 234 would be in keeping with the way trials are conducted in general. The state has the burden of proof and gets the last word and that should carry over to the penalty phase and into sentencing of all crimes.
It does have a great impact on a judge or a jury to hear from the last person who speaks. You can see the impact on the faces of the judge or the jury. Whoever speaks last has the most impact. I do not know how much effect that has on the jury’s ultimate decision. However, the effect on a judge can be seen a lot more clearly because the judge is right there on the bench and makes instantaneous decisions. You can see whether the defendant will ultimately fair better in sentencing, depending on what the defendant has said when he is allowed to go last.
I see benefits and drawbacks to the order of things, because sometimes a victim wants the defendant to have leniency when sentenced; not usually in a murder case, of course. Sometimes having the victim go last may ensure leniency for the defendant.
I have also seen cases in which the defendant goes last, he has an opportunity to hear what the victim has said, and may apologize, although he may not have apologized had he gone first. That has a great impact on the sentencing.
The Nevada District Attorneys’ Association is in support of S.B. 234. We see the benefits of allowing the victim’s impact statements to be last because of the impact it has. We urge your support.
Senator Porter:
In the original request from Mr. Cornell, a bill was requested that allows bringing up the accused’s past when the victim’s past is brought out. Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, responded to my request that the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) already address the admissibility of evidence concerning other crimes, wrongs, or acts of the defendant.
Are there some procedural problems with the way the legislation is written? Could we improve upon it?
Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney:
You are involved in complicated statutory and case law procedures that have been developed over decades. There is a strong prohibition against trying a person’s past that could unduly prejudice the crime in question. There are certain limited circumstances in which it is admissible to bring up an accused’s past to show certain traits. It is complicated; it is well developed; the rules are pretty precise. I do not think, without careful consideration, we would be able to turn that around, because it has been case law approved by the U.S. Supreme Court and others. We would all like to say they did it three times before. It is obvious they did this time, but that is not what the law says. We have to have each and every case and each and every charge stand on its own merits. If bringing in prior bad acts could unduly prejudice the verdict, those acts are not admissible.
Senator Porter:
There was also a request to set the number of appeals and limit the time in which appeals could be filed or heard, so the accused would be more selective in wasting our taxpayer’s dollars.
Mr. Graham:
I think this is a frustration that all in the criminal justice system experience. There are a great many roadblocks, but they are legal and procedural roadblocks. They are sanctions not only by our state laws, but also by our federal laws.
You have sat on this committee before, and you have had bills come before you to limit habeas corpus proceedings and to limit the number of issues that can be brought up. You could say, “Why did you not bring this up 10 years ago? Why are you bringing it up now?” Again, this is an area being fought out in the federal courts and we have made efforts to fight it here. It is frustrating, but again, it is not anything that is going to have a quick fix.
Senator James:
We have passed some related issues.
Mr. Graham:
We have. Dave F. Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Office of the Attorney General, drafted a bill last session or two sessions ago on limiting state habeas corpus. I do not remember the bill number. We have had some success over the years, but have not met with a great deal of success. Through this legislative body, we have done some things, but there has been significant opposition and reasonable minds disagree.
Senator Porter:
What about the INS notification?
Mr. Graham:
A bill has been introduced in the Assembly that requires aliens before entering a plea to be advised of their rights with regard to their immigration status.
If you want to talk about a quagmire, when we get involved in immigration, it is going to be difficult to work this out with the results and responses relating to serious offenses and minor offenses. Immigration does keep track of people convicted of offenses. There is a process for deporting aliens, but they also have a great many rights that kick in to prevent deportation.
I had the luxury of seeing the request before the bill was drafted. Of all the issues involved, the only one the state could effectively “chime in on” would be to see that the victims and their families have the last word. Remember, it is not just the last person heard from is the one we listen to most, but also the state is the one that has all of the burdens in these matters. The state has to prove each and every one of these elements, beyond reasonable doubt. It is not an unreasonable disadvantage or advantage to the state for the defendant to have the last word, because the burden is on the state.
Senator Porter:
Mrs. Mowen testified regarding the trauma she and her husband experienced during the different trials. She commented she was only allowed to bring one picture and she was limited to 5 minutes of testimony. What is happening at that stage? What can the Legislature do to help these families?
Mr. Graham:
What is being done in this hearing is taking a step to address some of their concerns. After a person is convicted, the state does not want a mistrial during the sentencing phase. It does not want a conviction overturned. We do not want anyone to say we overstepped our bounds, or that the victim’s family unduly prejudiced the jury by bring up what a good person the poor victim was. We try to limit the emotions and it is an extremely difficult thing to do. However, once we get a conviction we do not want to overstep and overreach to try to inflame passion and prejudice. Some of the limitations we place on our victim’s address to the jury are based on the process of trying to keep if factual.
Senator Porter:
In this case, it sounds as if the criminal was able to provide more information than the victim’s families by having displays and different materials. Is that normal?
Mr. Graham:
Remember, the state has the burden of proving each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. You cannot unduly prejudice the rights of the defendant. We have to define more narrowly, what it is that we are proving. On the other hand, the defendant’s family makes efforts to create reasonable doubt even in the penalty phase. The statutes say any other mitigating factor. That means he loved his mother or he took care of his dog and that is admissible testimony from a defendant’s family.
Senator Porter:
So, what you are trying to do to the victim’s family is to keep the testimony narrowly focused so it does not interfere with the sentencing process?
Mr. Graham:
We try to confine it as best we can. We have prosecutors that have every bit as much passion as the victim’s family and that would like to do a lot more. However, we want to make sure we are Constitutionally sound and due process is not violated. We occasionally receive a reversed conviction because we get over involved in presenting the evidence, and then we have to redo the trial, which creates problems for everyone.
Senator Porter:
I do share the pain of the families. Showing the life of a loved one in 5 minutes or less, with only one picture feels almost like prejudice toward the victim’s family.
Mr. Graham:
What is interesting to those of us who have been in this system a long time, and I know this is no consolation, is that the victims’ families have input they never had 20 years ago.
The victims’ families have input not only during the sentencing phases. Through the efforts of the Legislature, they have input in parole and probation processes. It is a small consolation, however, when I started practicing in the 1960s this step was not there.
Senator Porter:
We appreciate families bringing forward their pain and suffering so the Legislature can help them improve on the process.
Mr. Graham:
It is a step at a time, and God forbid that anyone would have to be placed in the position of these people. We are doing a step at a time and trying not to overstep our bounds.
Senator James:
Many of these things were not even here in 1993, because victim impact statements and other changes were done by this committee.
Mr. Graham:
That is correct. Authorization for things like materials going to parole and probation to help evaluate the severity of the crime, and to make sure the parole and probation board realizes what really happened. That has probably been happening for the last 10 or 15 years.
Senator Care:
Mr. Graham, in light of what you said about undue prejudice and the risk of the verdict being overturned, is this bill written in a way that would give a court the discretion to permit the defendant to rebut, following the victim’s impact statement? If not, is there existing case law requiring the court to allow the defendant to rebut? If we enact this statute the way it is, is there a risk of a great number of successful appeals because of a lack of rebut.
Mr. Graham:
That is not an area that I have researched or investigated. Possibly, you could check with the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff and I could check with our people to do a little research on this. As you know, the courts are given great latitude. Chances are it should not be a problem. That is not to say it will not be raised as an issue, though.
Senator James:
There are a number of concerns the Families of Murder Victims brought up that they would like to see addressed in legislation. Except for the one contained in S.B. 234, I think the responses from Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Graham indicate that these are either addressed in other ways or cannot be addressed. I would like to ask the members of Families of Murder Victims that testified today whether they have any specific questions regarding any of your testimony. I do not want them to leave feeling as if they are not going to get the changes they want.
Mr. Cornell:
In regards to the appeal process, when the trial goes into the penalty phase, how would giving our impact statements last affect the possibility of an appeal if the person has already been convicted? All the impact statement does is to give the jury or the judge knowledge of what this crime has done to the families of the victim.
Mr. Graham:
I have no quarrel with this from a prosecutor’s standpoint. There are defense attorneys that carefully guard everything and they will raise whatever issues possible to make sure their clients are given all the due processes available. I am not in a position to say at this stage. I think what you want to do is very appropriate and should be admitted. I can understand the frustration sometimes of having your son or daughter or friend attacked unjustly, and no one being able to counter that.
I might interject here, Senator James and others on this committee have worked with the Families of Murder Victims from the beginning of their tenure on this committee. Our victim witness unit in the Clark County District Attorney’s Office was very active and hopefully will continue to be active. We look to you for support with legislation and we look to support you in whatever way we can.
Mr. Cornell:
I have a question in regards to the INS notification. I am asking whether there is something on the books right now regarding INS. I know we have to comply with federal statutes. There are issues they have to deal with since INS is a separate agency of its own. All I am asking is to have something on the books that makes it mandatory for the judge to notify INS that the Clark County detention has a person in custody who has been convicted of a gross misdemeanor or more. That person would then be turned over to INS after serving his sentence. Our INS has a very small staff; if they have to hunt down people they have an even smaller staff.
I have spoken to INS a considerable amount of time with regards to my case. All we are asking is if they are in the Clark County detention that INS be notified. If INS does nothing with it then shame on them, but at least we have done our part as a state and as citizens of the United States. Then it becomes a federal problem not a state problem.
Mr. Graham:
As I indicated, there is a bill coming through on the Assembly side of the Legislature to advise criminal defendants of the notification of INS. That would be a good area to explore making that change. We could see what type of notification is in place or needs to be in place to let INS know that a person of alien status may be subject to conviction.
Senator James:
What bill is that?
Mr. Cornell:
Senator James, I was just handed a statement for Sandy Sharp, Director, Families of Murder Victims. Her statement is: We are fully aware of the changes since 1993 for victim’s rights. That is why we are here today to continue with our concerns with victim’s rights. We appreciate and acknowledge the steps that have been taken, and we are asking you to continue to look into making some changes that help the victims and the community.
We are aware of the work that you have done and we appreciate all that you have done in this committee. We are just asking for your continued support, and we know that we will get it.
Mr. Cornell:
One of the other issues we do have is the limit of appeals or the overturning of convictions through the appeal process. Our court systems are bombarded. Each judge is seeing 10 to 14 cases in the mornings and many of those are appeals for a new trail. That takes away time for criminals still waiting to be tried. We are just asking for a limit to the number of appeals, and to limit the amount of time in which they have to file those appeals.
Senator James:
This committee will continue to work for victim’s rights in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Graham (responding to Senator James’ earlier question):
The bill number is Assembly Bill (A.B.) 394 and is fraught with all kinds of problems, but it may be an avenue we can use to explore this area.
ASSEMBLY BILL 394: Requires court to advise defendant of immigration consequences of plea of guilty or nolo contendere. (BDR 14-1088)
Senator James:
Mr. Cornell you should make a note of that bill and correspond with the judiciary committee concerning the status of that bill. If you have trouble getting a copy of that bill you can contact my staff and they will help you.
We will close the hearing on S.B. 234 and open the hearing on S.B. 229, S.B. 262, and S.B. 286. We are going to hear these bills together.
SENATE BILL 229: Eliminates advisory commission on sentencing. (BDR 14‑340)
SENATE BILL 262: Creates legislative committee on juvenile justice. (BDR 17‑572)
SENATE BILL 286: Revises provisions relating to certain committees that review issues pertaining to criminal justice. (BDR 14-774)
Senator James:
There have been a number of legislative committees regarding juvenile justice over the years. This includes both standing committees and subcommittees of the Legislative Commission that are interim study committees to study criminal justice issues. The study committees study everything from sex offenders, criminal sentencing, high-tech crimes and more.
In 1995, we did major sentencing reform in the Legislature. At the beginning of the 1995 session, it was apparent to many of us who worked in this area that the criminal sentencing in Nevada was in need of reform. During that session members of this committee, in particular Senator Washington and myself, worked on a subcommittee. There was some resistance from the leadership as to whether we could accomplish major sentencing reform in the one legislative session, because it was such a big job. We had to come up with a way to reform and then we had to get it reviewed by all the agencies that would be affected, including prosecutors, judges, and prisons. If you recall we had the parole board to review the parole rates and how long people were serving before they were up for parole. We had the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) make projections upon which we tried to base the budget over the biennium. All those things had to be fitted together into a sentencing reform. That is why the leadership said we could not do it in a legislative session, and we would need to have a study committee. We looked at the record and found there had been four or five study committees on criminal sentencing in the past. Some of them resulted in some reforms, but most of the results had been changes cobbled upon changes. The result was piecemeal criminal sentencing laws in Nevada.
We did accomplish the sentencing reform and did get a very good truth in sentencing bill that gave us 100 percent truth in sentencing, instead of 85 percent. We now have a minimal sentence in Nevada that is the actual calendar sentence rather than very short sentence by using the easy-credit system. We did it in one session.
I doubt we could have done it if we had only the 120 days’ session.
Senator James:
In 1995, the Executive Branch was proposing this be studied. They introduced a bill that created a sentencing commission. This is what many other states have done, and those states have big budgets and several staff. Some even set the sentences. Those commissions are given the power by the Legislature to set up the sentencing structure.
Some of the sentencing commissions have come up with grids. The judge looks at the crime, looks at the other factors, and then goes over the grid to the sentence. Their laws say you have to serve 85 percent of your sentence before you can be considered for parole.
I think we have a much better sentencing system in Nevada that came from S.B. 416 of the Sixty-Eighth Session.
SENATE BILL 416 OF THE SIXTY-EIGHTH SESSION: Makes various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies. (BDR 15-1872)
Senator James:
As part of S.B. 416 of the Sixty-Eighth Session the judiciary committee amended the bill proposed by the Executive Branch and created a sentencing commission that has been established and is having meetings. A number of legislators sit on the commission, including myself. That sentencing commission was more of a study committee, than a sentencing committee. It was designed to look at the many different criminal sentences. When the fundamental review was done this last time, the Executive Branch sent a letter saying it was proposing to eliminate the Advisory Commission on Sentencing.
When I heard that my reaction was we are missing an opportunity. What happened in 1995 should not happen. We should not have to go back and do a complete fundamental change or reform of the criminal justice system, because it has gotten out of “whack.” Some of the terms people served for crimes they had committed were outrageously short. Senator Washington and I could not believe it. We came back to the full committee with a proposal for changes, because the way the good-time credits, the work-time credits, and other sources of credits had been enacted in different legislative sessions was working to allow certain kinds of criminals to shorten their sentences too quickly. In sentences that people were serving, there were some incongruities and injustices.
Emory Crews, who is a Senate Attaché, had a son who was murdered. The person who committed the murder was coming up for parole in a ridiculously short period of time because of the nature of the conviction and credits he had received for time served. I do not think this would have happened if there had been a committee that was truly well constituted and well funded to do ongoing review and develop proposals for reform of our criminal justice system. This is particularly important in light of the fact that we have a biennial session. We are not in session very long and are not able to spend the time to do in depth review and analysis that the committee could do under S.B. 286.
Senator James:
The proposal I made to the advisory committee on sentencing when we got the letter from the Governor is to eliminate the sentencing commission. Instead of throwing out those duties and responsibilities, we should look at the statutes and identify all the other committees that concern themselves with criminal justice and consolidate them into one criminal justice committee. That way we can save the money from the sentencing commission and several others and just have one standing committee of the Legislature designed and chartered to work on criminal justice issues. This is what S.B. 286 proposes. I am going to propose it be amended. The three committees that are now proposed to be eliminated and consolidated into this new committee are the Advisory Council for Community Notification, the Advisory Commission on Sentencing, and the advisory board on industrial programs. I would like to add to that the Advisory Board for the Nevada Task Force for Technological Crime, because it is also a criminal justice committee and could also be within the context of this bill.
There is also Senator Wiener’s proposal to create a legislative committee on juvenile justice, which is S.B. 262, which has a two-session sunset clause and is also a standing committee.
SENATE BILL 262: Creates legislative committee on juvenile justice. (BDR 17‑572)
Another proposed amendment would be to incorporate S.B. 262 into this overall criminal justice committee. I think that is good for a couple of reasons. First of all, it ensures we have a standing committee. The Legislature has standing committees on health, education, public lands, a proposed standing committee on allocation of tax revenues, and a proposed standing committee on long‑term care. So, this would be a standing committee on criminal justice and would take in all these duties and responsibilities. That is the proposal and that is why the bills are being heard together.
Senator Washington:
A couple of sessions ago we had a committee on family court and I do not know whether that is another purview of this committee or not.
Senator James:
Family Court? It is.
Senator Washington:
I would suggest we include family court, because it is an ongoing evolving situation in both the Eighth and the Second Judicial District Courts.
Senator James:
We could only include the responsibilities of the juvenile court in the one I proposed in S.B. 286, but not family court because it considers the divorce and child custody and other such disputes.
Senator Washington:
The only reason I ask is because we have dealt with those issues repeatedly. It seems to always have a tendency to roll over into interim study committees. The last one I sat on dealt with the chief justice and overhauling the Eighth Judicial District in Las Vegas. It would be kind on our part if we just let it slide by.
Senator Porter:
I can appreciate the family courts are domestic, but the juvenile court, which is in the family court, may well fall under their purview, and I know the juvenile court is having challenges with one of the judges. If there is any way to include the juvenile court in this proposed committee I would concur with my colleague from Sparks. There should be a way to include it so that it clearly defines the juvenile court.
Senator James:
We could include the juvenile court. That could be written into the responsibilities, because it is going to be something that the juvenile justice committee would look at anyway.
Senator Wiener:
I appreciate any efforts to consolidate, and I understand the historical dilemma we have had coming up with interim studies and sometimes being fragmented. I just want to argue fervently to consider the legislative committee on juvenile justice separately because it is a very distinct population to deal with. When considering the recommendations that came from our subcommittee, the issues we addressed were far-reaching. Those issues involved the juvenile population in regard to sanctions, interventions, placement instruments, substance abuse, longitudinal studies, youth gangs, alternative education, juvenile justice commission transfer statutes, and minority over-representation issues.
This is a huge arena of a very specific focus, which are young people under the age of 18 or sometimes up to 21. It is huge, it is far-reaching, and it has a very specific population with specific needs. The subcommittee was very focused on the need for continuity and accountability to this population. We had trouble getting accountability until we let them know we were serious about the continuity of the efforts we were offering. It took a lot of efforts to make sure recordings of these committee meetings were maintained. Many action letters went out to existing agencies, commissions, and departments.
The Governor saw the merit in this and has included $35,000 in the budget for the committee. I am a strong supporter of keeping juvenile justice out of the criminal justice arena, although, I see reasons to integrate many of the other committees that have been proposed into one committee. However, I am a strong advocate for maintaining a specific juvenile justice committee. Again, we built into the bill a two-session sunset, and at that time we could review it and decide whether it needs to be extended. So, it is not forever.
We know we have a job to do. The continuity is important. With burgeoning populations, we are hoping to cut down on juvenile problems so that juveniles do not become part of the criminal justice system as adults. Again, I want to advocate keeping the juvenile justice committee out of your omnibus bill.
Senator James:
Okay, I appreciate that. The other important thing about this bill is that it will not prevent the Legislature from creating whatever interim study committees it wants in the future. You could even have them on specific criminal justice issues. I would like to encompass all the responsibilities in the criminal justice arena, the juvenile justice arena, and the juvenile court.
Let me turn now to the issue of sentencing and have Jim Weston tell you about his experience with the Advisory Commission on Sentencing and about what he found when, on his own time, he went to other states and to a couple of conventions.
Jim Weston, Deputy Chief, Detective Division, Police Department, City of Reno, and Chairman, Advisory Commission on Sentencing:
One other person and I traveled to two conventions held by the National Association of Sentencing Advocates throughout the county. I spent a great deal of time researching how these boards and commissions are structured throughout the county and where the trends were going. I tried to find out what role this advisory committee should be taking and how it should be structured.
We were sensing difficulties with lack of funding and lack of authority of the commission. As Senator James pointed out, sentencing commissions do range from the federal structure, to systems in which there are full-time sentencing commissions. In the federal structure, you poke your finger at a block on a grid, that is what the person gets as a sentence, and it is a fairly rigid system with directors paid and appointed by the governor’s office or the Legislature. Those commissions are paid full-time salaries with a staff of up to 15 people and with multimillion‑dollar budgets. Those budgets are to do all the statistical research of the prison populations, to do studies to determine the impacts of sentencing through the court system, and on the actual prison terms of individuals, and to develop legislation. This results in a whole department designed to oversee and monitor the complete sentencing structure.
For example, some places have done away with the parole board. They say there is no need for it anymore. You simply develop a sentencing structure, you sentence the person, they serve the term, and it is done.
I have noticed recently there have been one or two states that have gone backwards and are considering doing away with their sentencing commissions. Sort of like we are doing here today.
Mr. Weston:
What I found after looking at different programs in other states was that Nevada took a major leap forward in 1995 when new sentencing legislation was approved. The Legislature should not have waited for everything to reach crisis proportions. The structure should be continually focused on and monitored so that the tweaking, the adjustments, the sentencing structures, the penalties, and so forth can be looked at by somebody on a constant basis; then the information and recommendation can be communicated to the Governor’s office and the Legislature.
I do not disagree with the action by the Governor’s office, and I have met with the Governor’s office. I met with the Governor when he came into office about the current structure of Nevada’s sentencing advisory commission. We discussed the fact it was underfunded, and it is difficult to bring eleven commissioners to meetings. We discussed the fact that the amount of authority we had to change the laws was limited, other than making recommendations to the Legislature. There were many issues out there for this group of volunteers to deal with; it was difficult picking just two or three on which to focus. When the Governor began looking at the structure of this commission and to do a fundamental review of the state and its different boards and commissions, I agree the commission should be disbanded, and I think the majority of the commissioners agreed that the current structure is not appropriate. The current structure of the commission is not the best method to carry forward its business.
What we did all agree to is that we should not eliminate the commission without replacing it, as Senator James mentioned earlier. The great benefit obtained from the sentencing advisory commission is the fact there are judges, defense lawyers, prosecutors, the county commissioners, and law enforcement representatives working together. There is a good cross section of all the people in the state that deal with the sentencing structure. These people look at the sentencing we have and look at other issues and provide advice to both the Governor’s office and the Legislature. That should not be eliminated. The analogy is similar to the group of victim advocates that came forward today. The legislators listen to their stories about their experiences and this has a great impact on how the system actually works. That same story telling comes from the people who represent the criminal justice system and the judicial system when they talk about things that are happening, and should be studied.
So, what we found in the last 3 years on the current sentencing commission is that the entire board felt a lot more work needs to be done with the entire prison system.
Mr. Weston:
The state needs to be moving in the direction of the Department of Corrections, and look carefully at the issues of dealing with the 2 percent of the prison population that gets out of the prison system every month. They are locked up, but 2 percent get out and are back on the street. I, as a criminal justice professional in Reno, and law enforcement professionals in Las Vegas, and district attorneys fear that when these inmates come back into our communities they will simply offend again. This fear comes from the state not having done much in the prison system to rehabilitate, provide treatment, or provide a transition process back into communities. All of us agree there needs to be some type of focus to push the whole system in the direction of rehabilitation, treatment, and processing back into our communities.
In fact, many of us are emphatic about that. Nevada is one of the few states in the country that does not have a good system of intermediate sanctions. Other than being in prison or on parole, there is nothing much in the middle to deal with people in programs. These people either are in work programs or are still inmates who are in work programs. About a third of the entire prison population is out in the community working, being supervised, and going through rehabilitative process to actually prepare them to get back into community without re-offending. In Nevada, we have seen a gap in that area. When we had our last commission meeting, that was one of the areas we were addressing.
All the commissioners agreed there should be a continuation of the advisory members or support persons to assist the Legislature in the criminal justice policy committee. The only concern I have is diluting that out too much. Senator Wiener talked about not throwing too many different operations into one big committee, because deciding what issues to focused on is a major project that requires the sentencing advisory commission to become involved in the sentencing structure and all the many other details of criminal justice.
I have jumped all over the agenda here, but we also have a report that covers many of these issues. We have submitted two reports to the Legislature, and this one was completed some time ago. My reason for being here today is not to prevent the commission from being disbanded. I just want to be here to let you know I am aware of what has been going on and we are in support. The commission is in support of Senator James’ efforts to create the legislative policy advisory committee.
Senator James:
With reference to the desire of the sentencing commission to explore more intermediate sanctions, that could be one of the charges of this committee in S.B. 286. In this bill, the committee would be set up with an advisory committee, which would have a member from the district attorney’s office, a member from the district judges association, another representative from law enforcement, someone from the Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety, a person from the Victims of Crime, a county commissioner, the Department of Prisons, someone from the central repository of records, and a private attorney from the defense bar. So, in this bill, we would cover all of the areas that were covered by the sentencing commission through an advisory committee to the proposed legislative committee. If we amend the bill, we would add anybody to that advisory committee that would be necessary to deal with the issue of high-tech crimes, to deal with Senator Porter’s and Senator Washington’s concerns regarding juvenile court, and to address the concerns of Senator Wiener regarding juvenile justice issues. That is how we could do this, and it could be done without a fiscal note, because we are eliminating other committees.
Senator Porter:
I have a technical comment regarding action, I do not see it and it may well be in here. I think we should add a standing procedure on votes that requires a majority of each house. Staff would probably like to add certain language that would meet our standard, or is it already there?
Senator James:
Yes, it is in section 19, subsection 5, and says any recommended legislation must be approved by a majority of the members of the Senate and a majority of the members of the Assembly. That is the standard language, and you are right to point that out.
John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender:
You are to be commended for trying to consolidate all these functions of the criminal justice system, so we are not running hither and thither, getting into one another’s way, and ending up with inconsistencies in our system. One thing I notice about S.B. 286 is that practically everybody is represented on the advisory commission except the portion of the bar that handles about 80 percent of the criminal cases, the public defenders of this state. I suggest there be some arrangement made for a representative of the public defender’s office to be appointed to the commission by either gubernatorial appointment or a consensus of public defenders.
Senator James:
How is that covered, Mr. Wilkinson?
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned earlier, right now the only member of the criminal defense bar is specifically an attorney in private practice. Basically, it is the current membership of the Advisory Commission on Sentencing plus two additional representatives of the Department of Prisons and a representative of the central repository. That is the current makeup as drafted in this bill. There is not a provision that pertains to a member of public defenders office, right now. We could certainly add one.
Senator James:
I do not have any objections to that. The members of the public defenders office who testify to the judiciary committee always provide helpful input on these issues. I think both the prosecutors and the defense benefit from that, so I do not really have a problem adding that to our list of amendments.
Senator Titus:
I was looking at this appointment of the members of the Legislature, and those appointments are all by the majority leader, even though one has to be of the minority party, why cannot the minority leader appoint the minority member instead of the majority leader appointing all of them?
Senator James:
All right, we will consider that. I guess I had better ask the majority leader and the minority leader. How did we come up with the methods of appointment?
Mr. Wilkinson:
This is just patterned after the other standing legislative committees.
Senator Titus:
Just as Mr. Morrow, I just keep trying. It may not do any good, but I keep trying.
Senator James:
As I said, we are going to consider that.
This bill will be in process. I am going to propose an amendment to add the high-tech crime task force. The proposal is to consolidate the high-tech crime task force duties with the proposed committee in S.B. 286. We hear this again to make sure all parties get a fair chance to state their positions regarding the consolidation.
We will close the hearing on S.B. 286 and S.B. 229. We will open the hearing on S.B. 262, Senator Wiener’s bill regarding juvenile justice. Of course it is the chairman’s proposal that we consolidate this with the committee in S.B. 286. However, I want to give Senator Wiener a chance to go through the testimony she has prepared and share with us again some of the important work she did on the interim committee for the Study of the System of Juvenile Justice in Nevada.
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3:
There are three main points I want to stress as the chairwoman of the interim committee for the Study of the System of Juvenile Justice in Nevada, which was Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 13 of the Seventieth Session, and as the vice chairwoman of the previous interim Study of the System of Juvenile Justice in Nevada, which was A.C.R. 57 of the Sixty-Ninth Session.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 13 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Directs Legislative Commission to continue study of system of juvenile justice in Nevada. (BDR R-224)
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 57 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of system of juvenile justice in State of Nevada. (BDR R-1869)
Senator Wiener:
When I first brought up this idea, it ended up being an Assembly interim study chaired by Assemblywoman Jan Evans. One of the recommendations was to bring forward a second interim study committee in this last interim. One issue that was consistent between the two interim studies was the continuity of an existing legislative body versus an interim study, and we did not know until the end of session whether it would be continued. We struggled with accountability from agencies, commissions, and departments. We spent much of our early work just trying to get reports from people who were supposed to provide them to the Legislature. Many of the stakeholders agreed that the accountability would be much easier if there were a legislative entity to which the agencies, commissions, and departments would be accountable on a regular basis, not just during an interim study.
A lot of the work that was done by juvenile justice professionals, and administrators was not put into bills, but rather were in action letters through existing agencies and departments directing them to take advantage of activities already in place. We used this method because the committee did not feel that making more laws is necessarily enriching policy and procedure.
You have made a recommendation in S.B. 286 to have advisory members. Based on the history of the two interim committees, I feel that would supplement this bill in a very positive way. We had advisory members on both of our interim studies. So, we have a history of that with the interim studies. We had some very valuable input from people in the industry who deal with juvenile justice everyday. So, I would support having advisory members, if this bill were to go forward.
A theme that was consistent was accountability, and another was continuity between interim studies. It is very difficult to have people willing to report when they do not have someone to whom they have to be accountable, even when you have two back-to-back interim studies. We had to do a lot of rounding up to bring people to the table with the information the committee needed. Many things evolved from that.
Senator Wiener:
One thing that was clear throughout the two interim studies is juvenile issues often need a specific focus from the people who work in that arena. That focus is the hope that we can keep juveniles out of the criminal justice system. A lot of our attention is on diversion and early intervention, which is very distinctive to the juvenile population. It is our hope that we do not have to build long-term facilities for juveniles. We also hope to keep them out of the long-term facilities provided by the state for adults.
I would like to underscore that Governor Guinn recommended $35,000 in his budget for this interim juvenile study. He saw the merit in this committee and went forward before the bill was even introduced because of the report from the interim committee. When talking to the professionals who have dealt with the committee and people impacted by the issue, there is strong support for keeping this a separate committee. The hope is to make every effort to keep juveniles out of the adult criminal justice system.
Again, the juvenile court would certainly be in purview of what the committee established in S.B. 286 does. When you look in the bill you will see that the stand-alone legislative committee addresses the broad jurisdiction of the committee. There is merit in all the issues it would address and merit in the concerns of the people of Nevada. A legislative committee on juvenile justice would have its hands full dealing with just juvenile justice issues.
Senator Washington:
I have had an opportunity to serve on that committee twice, once under the leadership of the late Assemblywoman Jan Evans and once under Senator Wiener’s leadership. I am wondering, as we develop this committee that you proposed, whether it would be possible to develop a subcommittee that deals directly with juvenile justice matters and that reports to the full criminal justice committee.
Senator James:
That would certainly be possible. I do not think there is any prohibition on a standing committee creating subcommittees; in fact, it happens all the time. I serve on the committee on public lands, we often have discrete issues that require additional study, and we break into subcommittees. That would be another way to deal with this issue concerning juvenile justice.
Senator Washington:
Is it possible to devise a subcommittee for juvenile justice that could be comprised of members who have served on the previous juvenile study committees or does that membership have to come strictly from the committee proposed in S.B. 286.
Senator James:
Let me clarify that the S.B. 286 committee I am proposing would be a standing legislative committee on criminal justice, and it would have only legislative members. The advisory subcommittee, however, would be people from various parts of the community, and the juvenile justice community would be represented on that advisory board. We could have an amendment to the bill to represent persons on the juvenile justice advisory board. That is one way to do it. We will certainly consider Senator Wiener’s proposal, evaluate that as a judiciary committee, and then make whatever decisions we make.
Senator Care:
I have tried cases in juvenile court that are called contested hearings and the judges are called hearing masters. The idea is to make it less traumatic than a trial. Setting aside those situations in which juveniles have been certified to be tried as an adult, in my experience it sometimes seems that the defendant is guilty until proven innocent. The reason for that seems to be they want to impress upon the child that the criminal justice system is serious business. When a first-time offender walks into a courtroom in which the judge is wearing a black robe and there is a very official looking bailiff, the child gets to know that this is serious business. The emphasis is on diversion, and there is usually a fine of $100. The hearing master will say, “That has to be your money; your parents cannot give it to you.” There is often community service involved also.
I think there ought to be a separate committee or subcommittee that focuses on those types of offenders as apposed to conviction and sentencing with the possibility of rehabilitation.
Senator Porter:
Regarding the S.B. 286 advisory committee, I recommend we consider having a citizen who is a member of the community and is not representing an organization.
Senator James:
Do you want someone beyond the victim or crime advocate member?
Senator Porter:
Yes, for consideration. I know we have time to talk about that.
Senator James:
We are taking down these different proposals and we will consider them when we have the work session.
Mr. Morrow:
An observation that might be of help to the committee when it is considering Senator Wiener’s proposal is there is a fairly discrete group of people that deal with the juvenile system. It is not a large group, and that group predominantly involves public defenders. The public defenders are appointed to represent all juveniles, because juveniles are assumed indigent. Because of the people involved in the system, that may be an area in which some special concentration is needed.
Senator James:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 262 and open the hearing on S.B. 282.
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)
Roy W. Leo, Supervising Compensation Officer, Nevada Victims of Crime, Hearings Division, Department of Administration:
Under the Victims of Crime program, the current statute states the loss of earnings cannot exceed $300 per week and $2500 for the cost of a funeral. We would like to remove these limitations and allow the State Board of Examiners to set the rates for compensation for lost wages and funeral expenses. The reason is some people that are injured have families to support. These people are earning around $800 per week, but the most they can claim for lost wages is $300 per week. We did a survey of funeral homes in Las Vegas and found the cost of a funeral averages between $4000 and $5000, and the maximum we can pay is $2500.
Senate Bill 282, if approved, would give the State Board of Examiners the flexibility to change the amount of compensation, instead of our coming before the Legislature every 2 years to ask for an increase.
Senator Care:
Your are requesting to strike the amounts in the current statute of $300 per week and funeral expense not to exceed $2500, in subsection 3 of NRS 217.200, we are leaving in the $50,000 figure. Why would we want to delete the two figures in the bill and yet leave the $50,000 on the books? Would we want to consider deleting or raising that figure?
Mr. Leo:
No, Senator, the $50,000 is the maximum compensation we can pay under our program, and with the other 50 states in mind, we are quite satisfied with the $50,000 fee. We did not approach that $50,000. We just want to give the State Board of Examiners the flexibility to change the $300 per week and $2500 for funeral expenses. Every quarter that we meet we can approach them with a change.
Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association:
We want to let the Legislature know we are in support of anything that more realistically compensates victims of crime. We are aware in the Reno area as well that funerals cost more than $2500, and we believe $300 per week is not reflective of the economic situation of many of our victims. They make more money than that. If they are incapacitated because of having been a victim of a crime, we think their compensation for weekly wage should be more reflective of what they actually earn. Therefore, we are in support of this bill.
Senator Wiener:
This is the second time we considered a bill to get rid of the actual dollar values, keeping the cap at the $50,000. We did it also with the bill on the amount for homesteading. We established a formula, instead of requiring the organization to come back every 2 years. I am wondering when the last time that $300 might have changed. If it was 2 years ago, that would still have been a modest sum.
To use our limited amount of allocated bill drafts to make these changes every 2 years is not an effective policy. It is probably more appropriate to use a formula or something along those lines as we did in the other situation for which we lifted the actual dollar amounts. It is probably a better service to the public, considering our 120-day limitation, instead of coming back every 2 years to evaluate whether there has been a substantial impact on a sum. So, as policy makers it is the right direction to go in terms of serving the public.
Senator James:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 282 and this meeting is adjourned at 10 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Johnnie L. Willis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE: