House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (12)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB433
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB433”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1440
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1440”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1708
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1708”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1856
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1856”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1366
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1366”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1447
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1447”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1503
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1503”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1784
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1784”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2146
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2146”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB259
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB259”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB417
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB417”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB705
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB705”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Remember the number? 1847. 1847. Without objection, we're going to set it for a week from today. Yes, sir. All right. Is there anybody ready to run a bill? It's on committee. Representative Hickerson, you're recognized. Representative Hickerson, which bill are you running?
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
0:30
You're recognized to present in House
Bill 1708. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have with me today Prosecuting Attorney Carlton Jones, and he'll give you a little background on this bill. First of all, members, House Bill 1708 amends the existing code pertaining to the offense of criminal possession of body armor. Currently, an offender can only be charged with this offense if they had previously been
convicted of certain felony offenses. So under this bill, it will be a crime to be in possession of body armor during the commission of these felony offenses. The bill also expands the list of felony offenses that support this charge, and it increases the offense grade from a Class A to a Class D felony. The bill is supported by the Arkansas Police Chiefs Association, the Arkansas Sheriff's Association, and the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
And I'll be glad to take any questions, but if it's okay, Mr. Chair, I'd like for Prosecuting Attorney Jones to give a little bit more background information on it, if that's okay. Mr. Jones,
if you'll let everybody know who
Speaker 10
1:51
you are, you're recognized. Thank you. Carlton Jones, prosecuting attorney at Judicial District South. And thank you all for being here and having me here this morning. It seems like afternoon. But the reason that I made the changes or hoped that we could make the changes in this bill
was in discussions with law enforcement officers across the state and in my community about the potential of offenders using body armor to be able to prevent a law enforcement officer from being able to properly engage them if they are committing an offense. Particularly, a couple of years back, I came across a case where an individual in my judicial district was in possession of a pretty substantial amount of controlled substances and was in possession of body armor at the time that he was arrested.
And if that person had engaged law enforcement with a weapon in an attempt to take him down, law enforcement could have been at an extreme disadvantage in that instance. I looked at the statute and saw that, first of all, I could not charge that person based upon the language in the statute, and even if I could charge that person, they could only be charged with a misdemeanor offense, and I found that to be not an appropriate disposition for that type of offense. In discussion with law enforcement officers that are currently working and some that are
retired, they all agreed with me that that would be a problem. I've also spoken with other prosecutors across the state who have encountered some of the same circumstances as have I in finding individuals in possession of controlled substance with body armor, and it's becoming an issue that I think is going to grow rather than diminish. And last but not least, I spoke with Mr. Mark McCune, who's the prosecuting attorney of the 21st Judicial District, and they had a shooting at their courthouse where an offender,
the offender, was wearing a ballistic vest. initially that person was mistaken for an undercover law enforcement officer, which at that point in time could have been extremely dangerous for the approaching law enforcement officers when they misrecognize this individual because they are outfitted, and you don't know necessarily who that person is. But fortunately, that situation resolved itself, and that is the reason for the bill. Are there any questions from committee?
Representative Walker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had spoken with Ms. Hickerson about this, and also you, Prosecutor Jones. I applaud your being here. And also I'm proud of the fact that you're the first elected black prosecutor in the history of the state. Only in all these years, just one. Now, it bothers me only after I thought about it, Ms. Eckerson, and I indicated I wouldn't oppose it, probably still won't.
But let's assume that a person just has on what you would consider to be body armor and no weapon or anything like that. Does that person,
by wearing an unusual garment, subject him or herself to prosecution of a felony offense? No weapon, no drugs,
no anything. Just walking down the street with that on.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
5:19
No, sir, I don't believe this bill does that. The charge of criminal possession of body armor would be charged if a crime was being committed. One of the felony crimes. I'd like for Prosecutor Jones to confirm that.
Yes, sir, Mr. Walker, Representative Walker.
Speaker 10
5:40
It is the specific intent of the legislation to not interfere with the right of a law-abiding person to be in possession of or even wear body armor.
It is only if you are in the commission of one of the enlisted felony offenses or have been previously convicted of one of those listed felonies. would you be subjected to any criminal sanction or punishment?
If I may follow up, that's the part that bothers me. If
you've already been convicted of some offense, and you have served your time and everything, and you just happen to wear
a body armor down the street in the middle of the day,
does not that subject you to another crime? It
Speaker 15
6:28
could, but only if you were convicted of the enumerated felonies. And I think we can analogize this to possession of a firearm. If a person
Speaker 10
6:37
is previously convicted in this state of any felony offense, they are strictly precluded from being in possession of a firearm subsequent to that without a pardon of the governor. But in this instance, it would only be some six to eight specific enumerated criminal offenses, not just the general whole criminal code.
Yes, sir. Are there any other questions from committee? Seeing none, Representative Steele, you got a question?
Okay. Seeing nobody signed up to other Mr. Jones to speak for or against the bill, Representative Hickerson, do you wish to close
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
7:14
for your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just appreciate a
good vote. Got a motion from Representative Steele. Do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.
All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
7:27
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Committee. Thank you, Representative Hickerson. Representative Shepard, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee. I bring back House Bill 1440 for us to concur in the Senate amendment.
And I believe this was the amendment the previous, the bill is drafted, provided for the information to be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. the Arkansas Press Association had asked that we remove that restriction but it is my understanding that such information is already exempted from the Freedom of Information Act but they requested that we not have
that reference in there twice essentially and Mr. Cazort can correct me if I'm wrong but the information is not going to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This is just a little bit of cleanup. questions
from committee I don't believe there was anybody signed up to speak for against this bill should
Speaker 35
8:54
be at the very should be at the very top top very first one
All right, committee, are there any other questions from the committee? Seeing none,
got a motion for Representative Gilliam to do pass. All those in favor say
aye. Aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
9:33
passed your bill. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have one other bill while I'm here. Can I go ahead and present that? Absolutely. That's House Bill 1856. and with the chairman's
permission, I'd like to ask Mr. Bob McMahon from the prosecuting attorney coordinator's office to join me here. Sure. Mr. McMahon, if
you'll just remind everybody who you are, please, and you're recognized.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
10:01
Bob McMahon, prosecutor coordinator. You're recognized. Present the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill concerns the criminal offense of theft by receiving, and I believe this would be more or less just some clean-up language to bring some consistency between several
different criminal law sections. And I would let Mr. McMahon make additional comments. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What this
Speaker 43
10:21
does is it makes the theft by receiving statute with regard to firearms consistent with the normal theft
Speaker 45
10:26
of property statute. In the last session when this was altered a little bit, it made a difference between the theft by receiving statute and the actual theft statute, just, again, with regard to firearms. So what it does, if a firearm, it would be a C felony if the firearm was valued at $2,500 or more, and a D felony if it was valued at less than $2,500, and that's just to be consistent
with the actual theft of property statute. Any questions from committee? Representative Steele, you're
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
11:03
recognized. Mr. McMahon, previously did the theft by receiving statute as related to firearms have any dollar amount in it? Or has it always been $2,500? I believe
Speaker 45
11:12
that this is to make it what it was before. I think this was already in there before. I believe that's correct. I was just
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
11:18
curious because I remember that change and I couldn't remember what it was before we did this.
Speaker 45
11:24
So this suggestion to come from us from prosecutors as well as some law enforcement that recognized the
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
11:34
problem. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is a gun that costs more than $2,500? I never see those advertised. Are they collector's items or are they, I mean, that's a pretty expensive Saturday night special. Could be, but
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
11:53
again, the purpose of this is to bring consistency among several code
sections. Okay. Representative Walker, you're recognized. Thank
you. Representative Nichols is always provocative. The question of cost $25,000 is sort of vague. at what point, at the wholesale stage, the sales stage at retail, or the resale stage,
or what the person paid for it. I mean, because you see, a person, if I were to buy
a weapon from you, which I wouldn't of course, and I paid you $500 for it, but it may have a value of $2,500 to $3,000. What would be the value of this under the statute? Well, Representative
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
12:56
Walker, I guess my first point is we have numerous other statutes that have this exact language. That's the purpose of the bill. Now, with regard to what is the value of the firearm, my position would be that would be at the point of the theft.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
13:13
What is the value of that firearm? Not at the point of sale, but the question about what the value
is, that's a question for the jury, is it not? No, it's the question of
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
13:25
who sets value and how you do it. That's a question for the jury to determine, because if you have a client who's charged with the firearm being valued in excess of $2,500, then I would assume that one of the things that you would argue is you would bring a gun expert in to say well this firearm actually is not valued at $2,500 the jury would make that determination
but this language is in numerous other code sections and Representative Steele is a former prosecutor he can certainly correct me if I'm wrong but one of the things that we're trying to do is just bring consistency this is about consistency the question about valuation if we're going to get into that then we're going to have to review a lot of other statutes It's
beyond just this change. Well, I recognize what you say, but I think that when you're talking about consistency, you're talking about
doing this for purposes of codification down the road. But when you talk in terms of value, that's the floating definition, and it doesn't give
any guidance to an individual with respect to his or her purchases of weapons. I mean, a person may purchase a weapon from you now, and it may list in Walmart for $2,500, but you may be able to buy, and it certainly would be likely, you may be able to buy it at Target for maybe, if Target sells weapons, for $1,500. It
would seem that the value would be set not by the market, but by the actual value.
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
14:51
Well, the actual value would go to the market value. In other words, if I have a weapon
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
14:56
or any piece of property that you can buy at Target for less than what I want to sell it for, then I would think that that certainly is very significant evidence as to what the market value is. I mean, that just goes to, as we deal with a number of different issues in criminal law in particular, that is something that, in particular, the jury, if that were at issue, the jury would weigh the evidence one way and another and would make a determination.
Again, you know, this is just to bring some consistency among various code sections. I believe that there is certainly that as the law has
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
15:31
been applied, the other areas of the law with regard to value, that that is pretty well established. And so I would just ask that this bill be looked at with regard
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
15:41
to bringing some consistency across the criminal code. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the committee?
Seeing none, I don't believe anybody was signed to speak for or against this bill. Representative Shepard, are you closed for your bill?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
15:59
Would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed and I move to pass. We've got a motion to pass. Representative Shepard,
all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations,
you passed your bill. Representative Vines, you're recognized. You'll just let us know which one of your bills you're running. Senate Bill 433.
Senate Bill 433. You're recognized to run Senate Bill 433. Mr. Chairman,
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
16:43
good morning. Thank you for accommodating me today. I bring you Senate Bill 433, and I've got a couple of folks here to
testify and discuss this bill, if I can get them to come forward, Ms. Tanner.
Absolutely, if you'll just have them recognize themselves, remind everybody
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
17:01
who they are. Senate Bill 433 deals with the Juvenile Code and particularly amending the abuse and neglect proceedings. you're going to receive a handout that really while it's pertinent to the issue it's more of an overview of kind of how these things are handled so you'll have a little bit more knowledge as we go forward and I've got Mr. Tanner here with me
to discuss it further basically this bill amends two parts of this code first part is the review hearings it amends the review hearing section to ensure that non-custodial parents who are fit or considered as placement options. It further requires the court to schedule the review hearing at the previous hearing so as to save money, energy, and time of the court so that we don't get into a huge notice process outside the bounds of the courtroom. It also provides that if the court requires a case to be reviewed prior to six months,
the court is responsible for all the notice and it's not the responsibility of the parties. Then in Section 2, we deal with permanency placing hearings, and that section amends the permanency planning hearing section to ensure that the non-custodial parents, again, are considered as placement options. And it also clarifies the requirement to extend reunification with the parent and also exceptions for the termination of parental rights. That's basically what the essence of this bill is. The handout, again, is for your information.
I thought it would be helpful if, particularly for the non-lawyers and lawyers like myself that don't really practice in that area would kind of know the process and the background so that we'd all have a working knowledge. I'll gladly answer any questions, and if I can, I've got my expert here to discuss those with you. Representative
Steele, you recognize for a question.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
18:57
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Vines or whoever can answer this question, I'm looking at Section B on the first page.
And I note that it mentions where a juvenile could be returned to. We just passed a bill, I think, off the House floor last week that included fictive kin. And this bill does not include fictive kin, which kind of concerns me. It seems to me whichever one ends up becoming law last is
going to be the one that takes precedent. And if we don't include fictive kin here, would we not be
Speaker 79
19:29
negating the one that we just passed? Connie Hickman-Tanner with the Administrative Office of the Courts. A fictive kin is a foster home.
So actually they're two separate. It's like apples and oranges. So this is when you're returning a child to a parent from whom they've been removed. And we also want to make sure this is in line with actual the Troxel United States Supreme Court case. And oftentimes we forget in juvenile court to look for other fit non-custodial parents. And so this is not the same thing. Fictive kin deals with foster homes, which is a great bill, and thank you for passing that, because now in foster homes, they can now include fictive kin, which are people that may not be.
We first looked for relatives for foster homes, but now for fictive kin, it can also include coaches and teachers and pastors to be foster homes. But that's not a permanent solution for children to be in foster care in the state's custody. This is talking about when you are returning a child to a permanent solution, always the first option is to return to a parent if it's safe and in their best interest to do so. And so we want to make sure that when returning to a parent, that also includes non-custodial parents,
and that's usually fathers that we sometimes leave out of the picture. If you've got a fit parent out there, why are we putting kids in foster care to begin with? And so we need to be looking at those fathers out there to make sure we're engaging them. And that's a big learning curve for a lot of our attorneys in courts to make sure we're engaging non-custodial fathers. And if we've got dads out there, we need
Speaker 80
21:11
to be hooking those kids up with those dads. Okay. I'm just
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
21:17
a little bit, and I appreciate your answer.
I think I've almost wrapped my head around it. The bill that we passed did not deal with placement for effective care. And it just dealt with foster care until the child could be permanently placed? Correct. Okay. And this deals with permanent placement? This is a permanent
placement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions
from the committee? Seeing none, has anybody signed to speak for or against this bill? Seeing none, Deputy Vice, you wish to close
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
21:48
for your bill. Absolutely. I appreciate the opportunity and hope this was beneficial.
And this will definitely be beneficial for our juvenile courts. And I want to also acknowledge my co-sponsor in the House here, Representative Fite. This is also part of her package, part of her beer also. So just honored to
bring it to you today, and we appreciate a favorable vote. Great. What's the pleasure, committee? Got
a motion. Representative Gillum do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations. You
passed your bill. Thank you, committee. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Without objection, we're going to continue to move out of order. Representative Harris.
Representative Harris. Are you running House Bill 1503? Yes, Mr. Chair. You're recognized to run
House Bill 1503. All right. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
22:36
Chair. Thank you, committee members. Let me pull it
up here on the tablet. All right.
House Bill 1503 is an act to
creating the offense of unlawful procurement of a firearm, ammunition, and for other purposes. And this bill has caused somewhat of a confusion, but I'll explain it today. This is a bill that I've been working on with the NRA, And it simply puts some more teeth to the law that restricts prohibited persons from even attempting to purchase a firearm from a lawful seller.
And it adds state penalty to the federal penalty of misrepresenting your status as a purchaser if you are prohibited from making that purchase because you have a criminal record. So basically what this does, like when you see at an expo center, you have these sellers at the big gun shows, and someone that should not be buying a gun comes in and tries to buy a gun. And this is going to give stiffer penalties from allowing someone to come buy a gun in there.
But it also keeps people from outside states, which this has happened in other states, from coming in with cameras or devices that kind of set up sting operations that get these sellers and try to do sting operations and try to false represent themselves just to get these sellers to make the wrong moves. And so it kind of does a catch-22, and this is really a good bill.
It protects the sellers, but it also protects the state of
Arkansas. Thank you, Representative Harris. Any questions from committee? Representative Cazay, you're recognized
Chair
Unverified
24:41
for a question. Hey, Representative. Thank you for bringing this bill. I've just got a simple question because I don't know what to do with it. I don't know about the remaining members of the committee, but I've been deluged with e-mails ostensibly from folks who have been in contact with the NRA
are acting in concert with the NRA, that under no circumstances am I to vote or support for any form of additional gun control, but merely to enforce the laws that we already have. Is any representative from the NRA here today to vouch that this is their legislation, that they want this? Because my folks will skin me if I go home after supporting gun control. Actually,
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
25:25
I spoke with them on the phone, Anthony Roulette, who is the NRA state liaison for Arkansas.
I spoke with them on the phone. I also have the email in front of me that I read the information from that came from him. So this is from, with his help, this is the piece of
Chair
Unverified
25:45
legislation. So there's no local representative from the NRA to
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
25:49
testify on this? Not here today. No, sir. But I think, Mr. Cazay, I don't mean to. I am the state representative from District 81, and I would not mislead you. No,
Chair
Unverified
26:01
I'm not challenging your integrity, sir, not at all.
I'm just, you know, my folks have been emphatic that I'm not to be a part of any additional gun regulations, and this appears to be an additional gun regulation. I just want to be comfortable that I'm responsive to the folks in my district on this. And I mean, I'd love to hear from the NRA or visit with them or see a mailer from them or whatever, but my folks have been absolutely clear with me that we're to support the existing gun regulations that we have and not pass any additional ones.
I just don't want to get crossways with
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
26:45
my people. Well, I think referring back to your question that you said, just in my testimony that this is help with the NRA. And so I respect your question. I'll be happy
to give you his phone number at the end of this. Well, I mean, is there
Chair
Unverified
27:00
any mechanism that we could table this and get him here? Because I just, you know, I don't want to run afoul of my folks back home.
Speaker 13
27:13
Do you want to answer that? The will of the
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
27:24
committee? I mean, I'm in my second term, so I'll do the will of the committee. I mean, I have no problem with that. I think this is something that the President of the United States is trying to pass, and they have failed to do, and I think this is a good bill, and the NRA supports it, and I think it's something we can do. and I want to run it, so I think I don't want to table it today.
Representative Ballinger, you're next on the list for
Speaker 108
27:54
a question. Justin Harris, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
27:59
Ballinger. I don't have my mind to somewhere else. Representative Harris, has there been a notification that was actually mailed out, emailed out from the NRA that I think actually came to all of us that was particular to this House bill, and, in fact, in reference to your bill and that you're
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
28:14
running it? Yes, there's been two or three e-mails and also phone calls sent out from the NRA.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Harris. Thank you. Representative Slinkert, you recognize your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Harris, where is law enforcement, all
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
28:35
law enforcement on this bill? Where do they stand? I'm not. I haven't heard from law enforcement on this. I would hope they would be in support of this seeing that it kind of enforces the unlawful sale of guns
so I'd hope they would support this it keeps from that
happening so are there instances where law enforcement are involved in those sting operations or something at these gun shows or where people buy guns like that this would not keep
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
29:06
them they would continue to be able to do that. This would not keep them from doing this. This is from outside entities coming in to do that, in particular just citizens, private citizens being able to do that.
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other questions from committee? Seeing none, there was nobody signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Harris, do you want to close for your
bill? I'd really appreciate a good vote. All right, you're closed for your bill. What's the pleasure of the committee? Got a motion for Representative Slinker to do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you. Representative Feight, are you ready?
Looks like it. 1447, House Bill 1447. Representative, I believe you're
bringing this back for a technical correction. Is that correct? That
is correct. Okay, you'll recognize House Bill 1447. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Please hold on tight because it's going to be a bumpy ride.
There was a technical problem with my bill because two amendments were made very close to each other. Therefore, we need to make some steps to correct that. What we need to do first is expunge the vote of 312, a due pass as amend. So I would like for us to do that first. Is that
a motion to expunge the vote? Yes. Is that before us right now?
I'm sorry. Perhaps I was not clear. I'm talking about House Bill 1447,
and I was speaking of the amendment that we adopted on March the 12th. So there's a motion to expunge
that vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. All right, you
can proceed. All right, the second thing we need to do to make this clean is to expunge amendment number four that we adopted on March the 12th. Got a motion to expunge.
I've got a motion to expunge that amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, look like the ayes have it.
All right, you recognize the move to the next step. Then the final step in this process is I need a due pass as amended with only amendment number five. All right,
this is last. We've got a motion to do pass with Amendment No. 5.
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. All right, congratulations. You have passed your bill. Thank you. That
was tricky, but thank you for your indulgence there and getting that cleared up. All right. Is there anybody
ready to represent a fight? Do you have another bill? All right. What bill are you going to present now?
This is House Bill 1784. You said 1984? No, excuse me, 1784. 1784, you're recognized. And I have a witness here with me. there is an amendment form do you have that in front of you amendment form for 1784 if you'll give us just a second
Speaker 145
33:05
we'll have it up sure thank you when I first read that bill I didn't know I didn't know I was concerned about it so I understand
your position Okay, the amendment should be on there now. Representative Fite,
you recognize, present the amendment. Okay, the amendment to House Bill 1784 is to delete Section
3 of the bill in its entirety.
Are there any questions from committee on the amendment? Okay, give us technical difficulties again if you'll just give us one second. Where did you find it at?
Just imagine Section 3 erased. Has everybody had the
opportunity to pull it up, Representative Walker? Thank you.
All right, are there any questions from the committee? Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the committee on the
amendment? Got a motion. Representative Vines, do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All
those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. You recognize to present your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is House Bill 1784, an act to increase the number of days the Central Registry has to notify a state agency of the results of a Central Registry check and to expand the list of offenses that qualify an individual from certain employment.
And I have with me today Lisa McGee from DHS to help answer some of your technical questions on this bill. One of the main things that happens with this bill, while now the unit can generally process the forms within three days, as you've probably read, the post office may be dropping Saturday delivery. In that case, we need a little bit more time than just the three days that are standardly allowed now. And if you have any technical questions about this, I have Lisa McGee here for that.
Are there questions from committee? Representative Slinkard, you're
recognized. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wonder, I'm just wondering, this is kind of technical, Mr. Chair, about whether or not because the amendment struck Section 3 out of this bill, does the title have to be changed? I don't know if that's a question to the drafter or who?
I don't know who that question is for, Representative Slinkert. I'm
Speaker 161
36:57
sorry. That's all right. Maybe Ms. McGee might be able to shed some light on
it. Thank you. Ms. McGee, you're recognized. Just remind everybody who
Speaker 162
37:06
you are, please, ma'am. Thank you. Lisa McGee, I'm an attorney with the Department of Human Services. And I think if you were going to go beyond the scope of the title, you're in trouble. But as long as we're within the scope of the title, we're fine. And
I've been informed that ultimately a decision would be a decision for the speaker, but I think it's fine as is.
Any other questions from committee? Seeing none, I don't believe anybody has signed to speak for or against the bill. Do you want to close for your bill?
Yes, thank you. I'd appreciate a good vote. What's the pleasure of the committee? Got a motion for Representative Slinker to do a pass. All
those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Representative Feight, did you have any other bills that you wanted to present today? Okay. If you'll just let us know which one you'd like to present next.
This is House Bill 2146. Recognize
to present House Bill 2146. And
I have with me today Rebecca Riley. She's the Development Coordinator for Domestic Peace. Coalition Against Domestic Violence. House Bill 1414 deals with stalking. 2146, is that correct? I'm sorry, 2146.
House Bill 2146 deals with stalking. Do you have it in front of you? Like domestic violence, stalking is a crime of power and control. Stalking creates uncertainty, instills fear, and can completely disrupt lives. It can involve severe, even lethal, violence. Many victims of homicide were stalked prior to their murder. The current Arkansas stalking law does not criminalize most of the common stalking behaviors.
The problems that are involved with the current stalking law, it's difficult to understand the current law due to the wording being confusing. It's difficult to prosecute under the current law because it requires a death threat. Multiple cases where the course of conduct escalates when the crime could have been prevented are not prevented under the current law. occurs before most homicides, according to law enforcement officials.
This proposed legislation will establish civil liability in stalking cases, and it will be an additional homicide prevention tool. Representative Steele, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative, are you aware, if this bill was
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
39:55
run last session, it seems like this same Bill or one very similar to it was defeated last session in committee? Yes, my understanding is that that is
correct. And it seems to me that
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
40:07
I think the basis for that was that this would create a stalking in the third degree, which is a misdemeanor.
Speaker 165
40:13
Is that correct? Thank you, Representative. Basically, last year it passed through the House and did not get through the Senate for the reasons that you described.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
40:28
I would think the same concern would be present here. And it always concerns me when we create a criminal offense that it puts, especially with this kind of offense, this is a highly emotional kind of offense. And I know as a former prosecutor, and I bet Representative Kazay as a city attorney could say the same thing,
that we get calls probably on a weekly basis of people saying, my boyfriend won't leave me alone. I want him charged with everything in the book. And generally speaking, there are a lot of things to charge him with, harassing communications, terroristic threatening. and I think that this is one of the words stalking is a word that is used sometimes thrown away and not as a term of art but more as an accusation and I've got two problems with this one I think the criminal code already has plenty of provisions for a prosecutor to prosecute someone for those offenses for the same actions
two I'm afraid it's going to put prosecutors under a lot of pressure to file a charge of stalking when it may not be because that's what victims generally demand. And three, if it creates civil liability, I think we're going to see a whole lot of lawsuits because someone, if they can't get a domestic relations order of protection or if they can't do this or that, they can always just sue somebody. And if they can convince other folks that they've gotten too many text messages or something, there could be a significant verdict. So could you address
some of those concerns that I think the committee in general had
Speaker 165
41:49
and that I still have this session? Absolutely, Representative Steele. And I appreciate all of your concerns. those are very legitimate. Unfortunately, what we see in the field as far as direct service providers to victims of violence is that 23% of the time stalkers do not have a relationship with their victim. So there is not a qualifying relationship there in order to have an order of protection or a restraining order, which you have to have in order to petition for. So those victims are left in a state of fear without any type of legislative efforts that will help defend them for law enforcement to enforce or for prosecutors to even prosecute.
So that is the main issue that we have there. But also, and I believe before you, representatives, you have a handout that I provided with some national statistics. One that I would really like to point out to you is that 80% of the time, stalkers violate their orders of protection or the restraining orders. So this is a problem that is unfortunately reoccurring everywhere. And nationally, it is a big problem.
The 2009 Bureau of Justice Statistics special report said that 2.4 million people were stalked in a 12-month period. So this code is actually modeled to Texas, Missouri, and Oklahoma statues that provide some civil liabilities to enforce these behaviors that are a reality in our communities. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I don't have
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
43:28
any problem really so much with the civil liability, but I can't imagine any actions.
And those states, by the way, don't have the same statutes we have on harassing communications and terroristic threatening. a terrorist threatening misdemeanor charge is pretty simple to prove. It doesn't require death threat or anything like that. It just requires some kind of threat. And harassing communications can consist of, you know, text messages that bother someone. So, and through both of those charges, could you not issue an order, a no contact order with either one of those misdemeanor charges that would also keep the person from having to contact the other person without any kind of relationship needed for an order of protection?
Speaker 165
44:06
That is correct, if they do have those criminal charges against them. However, with terroristic threatening, there has to be a presence of threat. In some cases, stalkers do not start with threatening behaviors. They start with leaving flowers on your front doorstep or sending you notes or sending you emails or showing up at your work, all of which are not criminal offenses. But these behaviors quickly escalate, allowing the opportunity for that obsessiveness to become dangerous.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
44:40
I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I understand the need for laws in this area. Same problem I had with the last session is that I think we've got sufficient laws in this area, and I think it puts prosecutors and city attorneys and everyone else in a pinch because a lot of times when a relationship goes bad, we end up having a lot of folks in our office wanting to charge people with everything under the book. And I'm afraid if we keep adding charges to charges, we create a redundancy there that's not necessary.
And you can respond to that. I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I particularly have a lot of respect for Representative Fide. I think she does an excellent job with this kind
of legislation. But if you might just tell us why it's needed on top of all the other criminal
Speaker 165
45:30
offenses we already have in the code, and I'll leave you with that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you very much, Mr. Steele. Those are very legitimate concerns. As I mentioned, 23 percent of the time there is not that qualifying relationship in order to file for a protective order or for a restraining order, which would be required to do so to petition.
And then also, like I mentioned, some of the acts are not criminal in themselves in that it does not start out with immediate danger or immediate threats, but it alters the lifestyle of those individuals trying to work to support a family when they are, you know, there is an extreme fear. And I can tell you, before I came to the coalition, I was the executive director with Family Violence Prevention in Batesville. And from our outreach office in the courthouse, we would help victims that come in that need to petition for an order of protection.
I cannot tell you how many people I had to turn away because they did not have a qualifying relationship. This is a real problem, and it's something that I hope that we take seriously. Just one follow-up,
Speaker 167
46:36
if I might. It's fine. I'd have to correct one little thing. I think you're right. You
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
46:41
have to have the qualification for an order of protection, which is a specific, its own animal. But a restraining order, you can file against anyone. I could file a restraining order against anyone at this table if I could convince a judge that it was necessary.
I don't have to have any qualifying relationship. I just have to pay court costs. Is that correct? I mean, not a domestic relations order of protection, but a restraining order, a civil petition, petitioning a court for a restraining order, I see those a lot without any qualifying relationship. So would that not still
be an option, even if someone hadn't committed any of these other offenses, like harassing communications
Speaker 165
47:19
or terroristic threatening or anything else? I have made referrals for that to the prosecutor, you know, directly for victims. However, if there is not a threat for immediate danger, many times those restraining orders do not get granted.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
47:32
I'm referring to a civil action, a petition for a restraining order, not something a prosecutor would do, but
Speaker 165
47:39
something an individual could do. I apologize. However, you know, there has to be the acts themselves may not be criminal, may not be an immediate danger to qualify to petition, but I cannot attest to specific restraining orders. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 52
47:53
Chairman. Representative Walker, you are next. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I would like to have you address, if you would, the standard that
seems to be vague to me, to feel fear.
That seems to be a standard that's somewhat new in the criminal code, So that if a person, upon just, for example, my presence and proximity to that person feels fear, a crime can be charged. I think
that the key phrase here on page one says would
place a reasonable person in the victim's position under emotional distress.
That doesn't keep representative fight a charge from being made, and then the defendant is in the position of having to determine that the charging part is not reasonable. Let me give you my example. My understanding is that
anyone can charge anyone, but that doesn't mean it's going to stick. So that's why I like this reasonable
person phrase. Well, here's the thing, the problem I have with that. Almost 95 to 96 percent
of people who are charged with crimes are convicted. So that means that the term reasonable doesn't really mean anything.
If you get charged, you're going to be convicted most times. Where do you have that information? Well, I think the prosecutors here will tell you that. Can you provide us with that information? Well, I'll be happy to provide it to you and give it to you this afternoon when I see you. Thank you. But I think that the
prosecutors will acknowledge it. You do not have a high rate of defense cases being successful. Now, and here's the concern I have. What
is your name, ma'am? Rebecca. What is your last name? I don't want to address one of them, but the first name.
Ms. Riley. Here's a problem I have. I have seen multiple situations in central Little Rock and in other places where persons usually in advantaged circumstances are driving vehicles, and when they are parked at a light and a person who may look like I know you all don't like for me to mention it who may look like Leonard Cooper comes up
you hear click click and that means that somebody has felt fear because they close their door and then that person becomes apprehensive thereafter in that environment and I see it all the time I've even experienced it myself. Well, a one-time incident
would not be considered stalking. Well,
the statute doesn't say that. But my point to you, though, here's my point. If you have a feel-fear standard, that feel-fear standard ought to be subject to some definition.
I mean, it should not be, a charge should not simply be filed simply because a person says, I felt fear or I felt apprehensive or I felt like I was going to be raped if I went to this particular place I mean whatever it is and I understand that all of these are determined to try to prevent things from happening before they happen and I respect the intent to try to do that but if you're going to impose criminal penalties don't you think you need to have some action that a person has engaged in other than a suspicion of action?
MS. Was that a question? What was the specific question?
I got lost there. MR. Before you impose a subjective person
to criminal liability, don't you think that you should have some conduct or action on the part of the person being accused rather than just simply a suspicion or belief that this person is of a can or type who would engage, who would cause a person to feel fear.
Well, actually, this says imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury. So just the presence of another
person, I don't quite see how that would meet this standard. position. All a person
has to do is call him and say I felt fear and I can't go there anymore and that's the kind of person I don't want around me. And then he's in a difficult position
as a prosecutor if he wants to act in good faith. Well, you know, it's something a person feels and he's somewhat compelled to try to act like we are here on a the complainer's charge. Now, what do you do about that? I mean, don't you already have enough action, Ms. Riley, enough statutes in order to reach all of these things just like Representative
Speaker 165
53:07
Steele said? No, there are not enough, unfortunately. And I have seen it firsthand, as I described as a direct service provider
previously. I believe what you are referring to might be covered under the reasonable person is defined as reasonable within the victim's circumstances. In other words, it would be an affirmative defense for that defendant to say, I'm not a reasonable person within this person's threatening in this way. But also, emotional distress means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily require medical or professional
treatment or counseling. So there are some definitions in place that would help also be affirmative defense for these defendants that may be having false claims. I know that this could happen, but my concern and what I'm representing are those that do not have the protections in place when they don't have the qualifying relationship for an order of protection, or when they are in imminent fear but have no way of enforcing
anything with law enforcement to help protect them. Representative Scott,
you're next on the list. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Feit, I have several questions, if you don't mind. First of all, can you tell me, what percent of
Speaker 165
54:46
stalking victims are women? 78% of stalking victims are women, yes.
Then I think it surely does take a woman to understand this. What percent of
Speaker 165
54:58
those stalking victims are eventually killed? I don't have that statistic before me, But I
homicides have stalking as a precursor to the event. Even after being arrested, how many of these stalkers continue
Speaker 169
55:16
to offend again? 80% violate the no contact order.
Okay. Representative Feit, is it your goal to keep as many women
safe, as many people safe from stalkers as you possibly can with this bill? Absolutely. Thank you. Representative
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
55:41
Ballinger. Thank you. Vice Chair. Representative Feit, this is, I think, just a technical issue, but it's something that I think needs to be addressed
and other people may be looking at the same thing but every place where we have the added language it doesn't actually have the strike through at least on the tablet I'm looking at Yes, I saw that and
I thought perhaps that was just on the print out And so what I would say
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
56:05
is that it probably would be a good idea to make that amendment before we vote on it here or I don't know if you'd rather vote on it to make the amendment but at this point I don't know that we
know exactly what would be stricken through and what would not be. I did not. Thank
you for calling that to our attention, Representative Ballinger.
I meant to check on that before we came in here this morning. I noticed that also, and I thought perhaps just my printout copy failed to do that. Mr. Chair, can you help us with that? Is it on the tablets, or is it just on the printout that the strikeout was not clear? Give us one second. What
Speaker 150
56:55
we're seeing is what's on the, I mean, you know, should be what's on the amendment.
I mean, what's on the amendment should be what's, we're seeing it as it would print, so whatever,
you know. I don't think the template's going to make it. Representative, what you
see on the tablet is the way it would be printed.
Okay. So it's as is. Is that? Okay. Then I would suggest that I
get the strikeouts done clearly and so that it shows on the tablets
as well on the printout and bring that back to you next
week. All right. All right, seeing no objections from the committee, you'll be
allowed to do that. Thank you. All right, Senator Sanders, are you ready? Senator Sanders, you're recognized. Present Senate Bill 259. Senate Bill 259.
Speaker 204
58:08
Mr. Chairman, former representative and Senator David Sanders here, testifying to this bill. Gentleman, a prosecutor from the Prosecutor Attorney's Association has joined me here. Committee, this bill, one of the things that you had
Speaker 206
58:35
considered earlier in the session
was a bill that came to you from Senator Dismang, which expanded the discretion of the Parole Board in Arkansas to be able to deny parole to a larger number of the offenses that would land one on the sex offender registry. I'm sure you look at this legislation and you say, well, that's included in this legislation. this legislation, and it is. But the other thing that this does, it also expands the parole board's discretion to include several violent felonies, and they're very limited
Speaker 204
59:13
today. What this does is it adds attempted capital murder, attempted first-degree murder, a number of terrorism-related acts, attempted aggravated robbery, arson, aggravated residential burglary and unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle. And those of you, particularly the attorneys and those of you who have worked as prosecutors, understand that the way we operate today, that the parole board can assess someone.
Speaker 206
59:49
They have their own risk assessment tools. They can think that an individual is a danger to society. But if they have been charged with one of the offenses that I just named here, their hands are effectively tied. They can think that someone's a danger, and they don't have the ability to grant or to deny parole. Parole is essentially mandatory. And I think this is very much in keeping with the spirit of what was accomplished in the last legislative session,
where we've begun to refocus our efforts on violent individuals as a result of some of the action that we took in the last session. And I'd be
Speaker 63
1:00:35
happy to entertain any questions, but would you like to speak? Mr. Chair.
Speaker 10
1:00:42
Yes, if you'll just remind everybody who you are, please. Carlton Jones, prosecuting attorney, 8 Judicial District South, and Mr. Ken Cassidy is here. This bill, because, and I agree, certainly enough we need to maintain the ability
and the discretion of the members of the parole board to be able to actually be the persons on the ground who are making reasoned and learned determinations about who should and who should not be released from the Department of Correction based upon fact-based evidence and not an arbitrary and capricious, and I'm not saying that to denigrate or make anyone angry, but whenever you set just a basic guideline that this person shall be released at this point that is not dealing with the reality of things,
that should be a fact-based decision by people who are trained, who are on the ground, who have an opportunity to review the law and review, you know, the evidence in front of them regarding this person's conduct and the rehabilitation of that person while they're in the Department of Correction. You know, I have unfortunately had the opportunity to see some people released, and you pull their prison sheet, and right up to the day that they were going to be paroled, you see several misconducts that would lead one to believe that they hadn't learned anything
while they were in the Department of Correction other than how to be a better criminal. And I think that in this instance, where we've already broadened the
Speaker 208
1:02:15
discretion as it relates to sex-related offenses,
violent offenses should be warranted the same treatment.
Representative Walker, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr.
Jones Senator Sanders where is the financial what is the financial impact of causing
I presume a number of people
would be kept in prison a longer time that
Speaker 204
1:02:42
is fair isn't it Representative Walker there is a financial impact here's
my question how much more time would be served than is being served by the group of people who are
charged and convicted of this offense. How much
more time would be served by denying them the opportunity for parole?
Speaker 212
1:03:07
Yeah, if you'll read, and I'm not sure if you have the copy of the financial impact. I have it here. I think
it speaks to that. My question is this. How many people would be involved? I'm not just simply looking
at somebody's determination of financial impact. We know that if you're going to keep people in jail for a longer period, it's going to cost $22,000 a year. Now, how many additional people would be affected by your bill based on what you know, the facts were last year, a year before last?
And I'd like to just do my own
Speaker 204
1:03:42
calculation of what impact is. Do you know what that number is? Representative Walker, I
Speaker 206
1:03:47
don't know. That's fine. And may I just say that part of what we're trying to do here is to give discretion. So I don't know that we could arrive at a number to give you what you want. I think we have the impact as estimated by the Sentencing Commission, which is obviously required, which you know. But, again, this is just to give discretion.
Senator Sanders, I just want to make clear, this doesn't make mandatory they stay. It's allowing them to look at
the discretion based on, like I said, conduct in prison, what program is in there it may not have completed, and things like that. Anybody else that has good behavior that will still be able
Speaker 206
1:04:28
to be probed, isn't that right? That is correct, and I will say and praise the parole board in the sense that they have fine-tuned and developed their own risk assessment tool for them so that when they're sitting in judgment in those quarters of the parole board that they're able to make the best determination.
And I think since they have gone the extra mile and to focus their efforts on risk assessment, I think this clearly is an area in which they
Speaker 204
1:04:56
need more discretion. Does the parole board just – Representative Walker, hold on. We
got somebody in front of you. I'm sorry.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:05:04
Representative Gilliam, you were up next. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative – excuse me, Sanders. Senator Sanders, it is good to see you back on the House side of things. Welcome back. I know you were extremely passionate last session about the defense, you know, of ordinary citizens from violent criminals,
and you worked very hard to make sure that Act 570 was crafted in a way that would protect us from that. Is your effort in this to continue in that vein of just making sure that the parole board can keep those that need to stay in prison in prison without just mandatorily releasing them? Could you clarify that? Is that what your goal is here? Representative Gilliam, first of all, I
Speaker 204
1:05:48
take no offense to being called Representative Sanders. I know
Speaker 206
1:05:51
from whence I come. So thank you.
And secondly, I think this may even go to the other question that was asked. Not only is it in keeping with the spirit of what was accomplished last session, I think if we look at what was accomplished last session And the idea was by focusing on more violent criminals, the people whom we are afraid of, not those whom we are mad at, there's actually going to be cost savings that runs through our, you know, correctional industrial complex.
I mean, that's what's going to happen as a result of sort of bending the curve. So, you know, I wouldn't say that this might cost a little money, but I think any cost would be potentially offset and would be offset by sort of the refocusing of the efforts of corrections on those who are
Speaker 204
1:06:49
violent as opposed to those who are nonviolent. MR. Representative Walker,
you're next for a question. MR. Thank you. have the impact statement before me, and
over a period of approximately 10 years, we'll
be increasing the cost of care by $3.5 million. Can you tell me in this era where some say that you have to reduce government where these additional funds are
Speaker 204
1:07:19
going to come from? Yes, Representative Walker, I think very much if you and we all
Speaker 206
1:07:24
listen to the testimony in the last session talking about Act 570 and how we're going to bend the cost curve, focusing our efforts less on those whom we are mad at rather than afraid of, you know, getting those folks out.
I think the cost curve is going to bend. So, I mean, this would essentially be, in my mind, would be offset by cost savings that would come. I mean, that's what we were told. We were told that we are going to save money as a result of the action that we took in the last legislative session. Senator Sanders,
that's the thing that concerns me. We were told that if we took, if we passed that act, then we would be, in effect, saving money.
And we had a definable amount of savings. And now, bit by bit, we're adding to the cost of operation. And this $3.5 million is substantial. And I'd like to know, since we are talking about balancing budgets and the like, if you have an expenditure on the one hand, you have to have receipts on the other. Can you show me where the receipts are going to come from
to cause this to be a no-cost situation to the state of Arkansas?
Speaker 206
1:08:48
Well, I mean, again, I can't do that, Representative Walker. because what this bill simply does is give discretion. What the Sentencing Commission tried to do was to give their best estimate. I know I've been told about other bills that I've hoped to run that the cost was going to be exorbitant, and then actually when the Sentencing Commission came in and did its work,
it didn't quite match up to what I had been told previously. One was almost a billion dollars over 10 years, and it ended up being, you know, around $40 million over 10 years. In this case, I would simply point to the fact, Representative, that we took action last session, and that was aimed at bending the cost curve. And the spirit of that was to focus more on the violent, dangerous criminals.
And I think that is what this does. I'm not going to disagree with you that there may be some increased costs, but you can also look at it and see that in 2014 and 2015, there is no cost, and there would be potential costs in 2016. Now, I plan to be in this chamber in 2016, but I think we're going to have budget fights and debate budgets, and I think everything that we have will be considered. But I think the good, clearly, I think this is worth paying for.
And I think it's an indication that we actually have people in there who are out who shouldn't be out.
But thank you, Representative. Representative Scott, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Senator Sanders. My question is this. Don't you think that these dollars would be very well spent and that these dollars are necessary to keep us safe and to do the things that
Speaker 206
1:10:46
Representative, I agree with you. I know I am horrified almost daily of the number of crimes that are committed in this state by parolees,
people that the state of Arkansas, by nature of our laws, have said that need to be out. And I think what we have to do and be careful to do when you're looking at cost is it's one thing to look at an Excel spreadsheet in a line item for ADC, but when individuals who are a danger, who are a threat, who are out there committing crime, there is enormous cost there, both human cost, but cost to the judicial system, cost to, I mean, there are other costs that are taking place, are county
jails, the cost of prosecuting, and the cost of a court-appointed lawyer, if need be. So, I mean, there are costs, but I do agree with your premise. I think it's right. I think what we're doing is trying to focus on those people who are truly a danger to society. And, look, I would like to give the Arkansas Parole Board the same discretion that parole boards across this country enjoy. In fact, many parole boards across this country enjoy greater latitude than what we are trying to give them.
Thank you, Senator. And it doesn't look like there's anybody signed
up to speak against the bill. We're also seeing no further questions from the committee. We've got some folks to speak for the bill. There are several all to speak
for the bill, so I don't want to get redundant. We recognize you. If you'll just keep it brief, please. We've got a lot we've got to do. John Feltz with the parole board is here.
Mr. Feltz. Mr. Feltz, good to see you. If you'll let everybody remember who you are, you'll recognize.
John Feltz
Unverified
1:12:37
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Feltz, and I'm chairman of the State Parole Board. We're not here actually in support or against the bill today, really just to kind of tell you where we're coming from. There are, and I think we're going to hear some witnesses following me, some individuals that we've dealt with who were victims of crime, officers of the law that were shot, and we certainly do support that.
Our concern, if we have one I indicate here, and sometimes in life we know a little bit's good, a lot is better, not always the case. There are some crimes that are listed here which the parole board does have a little bit of concern from the standpoint of they are crimes that we've not really had to come in front of us. I know during my 15 years on the parole board that we've had to deal with those crimes.
And the reason that I speak to this is that we typically handle about 800 to 900 cases a month. We want to try to keep the waters as clear as we can, not to be muddled by maybe some that we don't have to deal with on a basis. And, you know, again, I'm not in opposition. Certainly there are those violent crimes. We all have a desire to not release those individuals until such time as we feel like that they've been rehabilitated.
And, again, I would be more than happy to go over some of these with Senator Sanders. Again, we're not speaking opposition to this except for the fact that there are some that we would question that are going to be given to the board that we don't deal with, have not dealt with in my time on the parole board.
Thank you, Mr. Feltz. Seeing no questions from committee, we're going to move next to Matt Flowers.
Mr. Knodel, are you down? Looks like y'all are
together, so if y'all both just announce to everybody who you are, you're recognized. Just to remind you, let's keep it brief. We've got
Speaker 226
1:15:14
several people forward. Mike Knodel, I'm the director of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. I'm here with Sergeant Matt Flyers this morning. And as I sit and listen, I heard the discussion about potential costs for this program.
Having gone through this process and being very, try to be very brief, on November 3rd, 07, I was chief or colonel of the law enforcement division for the Arkansas Game and Fish. November 3rd, 07, I get a call that Sergeant Flyers had been shot. While on routine patrol just outside of Burns Park here in Pulaski County, he encountered a suspect dressed in camo. It's the opening morning of the youth deer season. While talking to this suspect for unknown reasons we never really did figure out,
he pulls a .45 and shoots Sergeant Flyers point blank right in the middle of the chest. It's not for body armor that morning that he actually left the house and didn't put on, went back in because he was just a new father at that time. He left, came back in, put the body armor on, or we wouldn't be having this conversation today because Sergeant Flyers wasn't here. But subsequently, after trial, the suspect was convicted given 17 years,
which was very disheartening. But only after four and a half years, this suspect was eligible for parole. We had to start attending parole hearings for him. And having discussed this with the parole board, this bill, 259, I would ask you wholeheartedly to support it because these are the individuals that we can't put a cost on that need to stay incarcerated. because I will never forget the last thing this gentleman said in court the day he was sentenced
was he looked at Sergeant Flyers and said, I forgive you for what you've done. By the way, Sergeant Flyers returned fire, striking the suspect five times. Just none of them were lethal. But that really bothered me. And with that, I'll turn it over to Sergeant Flyers a little bit, but I would ask you please to support
Bill 259. Thank you. We've got a question, Mr. Knadel, from Representative Walker. Representative Walker, you recognize
your question? Yes, sir. Your testimony is compelling.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. But isn't it a testimony against carrying concealed weapons? It could
We're going to move on a little bit because that's a little off the bill. Mr. Flowers, you're recognized, Sergeant Flowers.
Speaker 42
1:18:00
Glad you're here. Thank you. I'm kind of going to repeat
Speaker 228
1:18:05
what Director Knedal said. In November 3, 2007, I was on patrol as a wildlife officer with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
when I came in contact with this subject in Burns Park. I made contact with him, and to keep a long story short, during the interview with this subject is when he decided to pull out the .45 semi-automatic pistol. I had to struggle with the subject for a while, keeping his hands down. He eventually broke free with his right hand and tried to shoot over his right shoulder at my head. At that point, it's when I pushed the subject away, and he turned around and shot in the chest where the bullet struck the chest.
I pursued the subject. The subject continued to fight with me, tried to pull a knife out on me, got the knife away, I fought him again, where he eventually fled again on me. I had to stop. I'd realized I'd been shot. I needed to call for backup and assistance. So we did find the subject later on down the road. A year later, less than a year later, he was charged on August 6, 2008, Plast County Circuit Court for a criminal attempt, murder, first degree, and felon with a firearm.
He was sentenced to 180 months or 15 years for the offense of criminal attempt. Murder, first degree, and sentenced to 24 months or two years for the offense of felony with firearm. This totaled a 17-year sentence. In November of 2011, I received a letter from ADC informing that the individual was up for parole, which I knew would happen. But what I didn't expect was the offense that he was sentenced or charged with.
was not listed as a deniable offense. So he was going to be released that year for the crimes he committed. To me, there's a clear definite issue here. Individuals who try to kill others, whether it's toward law enforcement or everyday citizens, are being released back into the general public after only serving about a third of their sentence
because these certain crimes which they are committing right now are not deniable offensive, meaning this Arkansas State Broad Board cannot deny these individuals parole. To keep it short, as you asked, I just hope that my personal experiences and the information that I gave will help you all in your decision on this bill, Senate Bill 259. Thank you. Any questions from committee?
Thank you both for being here. Thank you,
Mr. Flowers, for what you do for us.
Mr. Cassidy, you had signed to speak for the bill.
Speaker 230
1:21:07
Do you still want to speak? Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I share the same experiences that Prosecutor Jones has, and when we go with family members to these parole hearings and the family members give, heartbreaking testimony to the parole board, and the parole board literally says to them, we wish we could do something, but this is a non-deniable offense.
Well, with this bill, we can do something. And I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you. Had there anybody else speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, Representative Sanders, do you wish to close for
your bill? Senator, I'm sorry, again. All right. What's the pleasure of the committee? Got a motion represented. Fight. Do pass. All those in favor? All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, Senator.
You passed your bill. Senator Hendren. Senator Hendren, which bill are you presenting right now? 417. Senate Bill 417. You
recognize and present Senate Bill 417. Thank you,
Speaker 235
1:22:28
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee. I do have an amendment for Representative Steele that I think has everybody got that.
It should be on the tablets. Would you mind, Representative Steele, if I speak to that amendment? You recognize and present the amendment. Okay. And just to be clear, I'd like to ask something I never thought I would ask in my entire life, Bettina Brownstein from the ACLU to come down here and help me explain this amendment. That's right. You heard me correct. Come on down. Mr. Brownstein, if you'll just take
the seat at the end of the table, you know where to go. If you'll just let everybody know who you are and who you're with, you're recognized.
Speaker 235
1:23:07
Let me just explain the genesis. This is about the third iteration. The first amendment that we're putting on this bill, this amendment does a couple things, and really what it does is clarify what this law does not do. because I want to make sure that when we pass legislation it's doing what we want it to do and doesn't have a bunch of unintended consequences. So I worked with some doctors, I worked with the ACLU and with some others to try to ensure that what we put here at the end of this bill, which is what this amendment does, is covers what this bill does not do. So if it's okay, Mr. Chairman, just to ask her to explain what we put on here and why.
Speaker 238
1:23:38
Yes, I'm Bettina Brownstein. I'm a cooperating attorney with the ACLU. Senator Hendren asked me to come
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
1:23:45
and speak, And I thought that might be the kiss of death for the bill, but I agreed to do it anyway. Yes, we had some concerns about that this bill potentially could criminalize the use of legal contraceptive methods. And so that was our concern. That was a concern of the Arkansas Fertility Clinic doctors. And we work with Senator Hendren.
I want to say appreciate his reasonableness. and so the bill the ACU cannot support this bill but we do think it
Speaker 238
1:24:17
is a much better bill than it would have been without the amendments and I appreciate Senator Hendren Any
questions on the amendment? Representative Steele, question on the amendment No question on the amendment Representative Walker, question on the amendment
Representative Kezia had his hand up, I'll defer to him Representative Kezia question
on the amendment Yes, just so that I'm clear
Speaker 101
1:24:41
this would take care of any fertility clinic or reproductive
Chair
Unverified
1:24:44
clinic or anybody that's trying to get pregnant and needs the help of specialists, that those folks will be immunized under this bill or under this amendment, right? Yes,
Speaker 96
1:24:51
sir. In fact, we've got a doctor who can testify that.
Speaker 235
1:24:55
That was, again, he is here with an attorney that, and they're satisfied with it. And again, if you want to hear from him during the debate of the bill, that's fine. But it did. That was the intent, is to make sure that fertility doctors and in vitro stuff was completely not a part of this legislation.
Speaker 96
1:25:11
I just want to make sure we're not going to hurt folks who
are really trying to have babies. I agree. Okay, any other questions on the amendment? Seeing none, got a motion for Representative Vines to adopt the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, the ayes have it. Your amendment has been adopted. You recognize, present, Senate
Speaker 234
1:25:31
Bill 417 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this
Speaker 235
1:25:33
is really finishing a job that I started about in 1999. That's when this legislation passed. and it actually passed through the House. I was the sponsor of this bill, this fetal homicide bill, the original statute.
And when it passed through the House, it was like we're going to put it today, which was covering basically protecting the unborn child the entire pregnancy. In order to get it through the Senate, we ended up making some concessions, and that was where the 12-week provision came from. Obviously, what's happened in the remaining 14 years is over two dozen states have adopted similar legislation that protects or gives status to the unborn child the entire time of pregnancy. So it's not really land-breaking legislation anymore. Really what this legislation does is say that – and prosecutors have struggled at some
point with this legislation the way it is now. When there is a crime, how do we determine if it's an 11-week or a 13-week situation? So basically what this does is say any time a woman is a victim of a violent crime under criminal law and causes her to lose that baby, the prosecutor has the option of treating that as a death, as a wrongful death from the entire pregnancy. Thank you. Are there questions from committee? Question?
Speaker 100
1:26:47
No question? Representative Cazell, you're recognized for a question. Mr. Chair, just so that I'm clear,
Chair
Unverified
1:26:59
we're talking about the substance of the bill and not the amendment at this point. We're talking about the bill now as amended. Okay. Senator, I've got several, Mr. Chairman, with the Chair's latitude. Senator, I have some things I just don't understand or don't know how it will work. And in full disclosure, I practice law, and I do a little bit of wrongful death work once in a while. So if I'm understanding your bill right, then at the time of conception, then liability could potentially be triggered.
Speaker 96
1:27:30
Is that right? For criminal acts, that's correct. But you're also amending the civil wrongful death statute, right? There would
Speaker 235
1:27:37
be some potential. Certainly there would be wrongful death provisions as well. if you do something that causes the death, there would potentially be some civil liability there as well. Okay, and that's really kind of where
Chair
Unverified
1:27:49
I'm itching. So if you could help me scratch it, that would be great. I don't know. Engineers aren't good at scratching lawyers. I understand. I understand. We'll get through it together.
In terms of calculating damages on the civil side of the wrongful death, Do you anticipate that there would be some, I mean, this wrongful death would take this out of workers' comp, for instance,
Chair
Unverified
1:28:19
it out of workman's comp? Well, I'm actually asking what if a miscarriage was triggered through someone's employment? Would
Speaker 96
1:28:25
then their employer be subject to the provisions of wrongful death action? I think, obviously,
Speaker 235
1:28:31
they're subject to wrongful death action right now.
What this is talking about is for provisions under criminal prosecution, whether or not that unborn child has status as something worthy of a loss. And let me just tell you the genesis of this. And, again, the implications of this. So many times we play these what-if scenarios. It wasn't three months after this legislation became law that there was a case here in Little Rock that got quite a bit of attention where an ex-boyfriend decided he didn't want his girlfriend to have the child and assaulted her and kicked her and made it very clear that he was trying to destroy the baby and did so.
And without implementation of this law, there would be no consequence other than an assault charge. And so that's what
Speaker 234
1:29:15
the law is trying to do. And does that have some implications on civil law? Certainly. And do I think that
Chair
Unverified
1:29:22
it should? Certainly. Okay. Well, and that's really kind of where I'm circling around is if in your circumstance, I mean, for wrongful death purposes, I'm going to assume that the boyfriend is kind of like a turnip. It doesn't matter if you sue him for wrongful death anyway because he doesn't have anything.
In wrongful death suits, you look for somebody with the deep pockets. So I'm particularly concerned about employers, and I have two concerns, and I'll be very candid with you. I'm concerned, one, that employers will not want to hire women of childbearing age or who are pregnant out of, you know, defensively. I don't want them to suffer a miscarriage or any other injury to the baby during the term of their pregnancy, so I don't want to expose myself to wrongful death. And I'm also then kind of torn with, well, what do you do?
Because the baby is clearly not an employee, so you're not into, you know, if the woman were killed on the job, that goes into workers' comp. But the child, I mean, you can't deem the child an employee,
Speaker 235
1:30:28
can you? Well, as an employer, I can tell you that the idea that this statute would be passed would have absolutely no impact on my decision about whether or not I would hire a woman pregnant or not pregnant. I think that's a stretch because I realize full well as an employer under workman's compensation laws,
whether this statute's passed or not, if I have some working condition out there that causes a woman to have a miscarriage, I've
Chair
Unverified
1:30:58
got a problem, and I don't think this law is going to change that one bit. Right, and I don't disagree with you as far as the current status of the law. However, by affording legal standing to the unborn, I would think that, you know, say somebody like Walmart or whatever, you know, they've got the deepest pockets in the state. But it would be a relatively simple matter to open an estate on behalf of the unborn
Speaker 96
1:31:25
and go after them for whatever that working condition is. Again,
Speaker 235
1:31:29
once again, I would argue the same principle applies, whether it's 40 employees or 40,000 employees, that if I have a working condition that knowingly or because of negligence contributes to a condition that leads to a miscarriage, I'm subject to litigation today. And the fact that the law says now we've moved that from 12 weeks to the entire pregnancy, I think is pretty insignificant in whether or not an attorney is going to come after me or Walmart or anybody else in that
Chair
Unverified
1:31:53
circumstance. Well, I agree, and I guess I'm not asking the question very well,
but it's one thing for your employee to come after you. The unborn child would not be classified as employee. Is that
Speaker 236
1:32:07
right? Well, I'm certain they haven't filled out their I-9 forms and all the
Chair
Unverified
1:32:11
other stuff that's necessary to be considered an employee. So then they would be like an innocent bystander or some third party. Say if you had an employee that drove a truck that ran over some third party or, you know, the same situation, they run over one of your other employees.
You know, one of those is going to go into
Speaker 235
1:32:32
workers' comp. One of them is not. Again, you know, again, I'm trying not to be obtuse here, and maybe I'm not understanding your question, but the fact that whether the unborn child is an employee or not is irrelevant in the fact that if I cause its death because of something that is due to negligence or unsafe working conditions, again, whether it's considered an employee or not doesn't matter. I've got legal problems, just like, as you said, if it's somebody walking through my plan as a visitor.
Speaker 96
1:32:58
Right. Okay. Well, then, how then do you propose to calculate damages for the unborn?
Speaker 234
1:33:06
I don't understand why I would address calculation of damages in a criminal statute,
Speaker 235
1:33:11
which is merely changing the definition of what we allow prosecutors to consider a loss when a woman is a victim of violent crime. Again, I'm not interested in making it easier, believe me, for trial lawyers to sue for damages,
and I'm not going to get into the case of trying to classify damages in a criminal statute. But what I am going to say is that right now the statistics are clear. Women are far more likely to be beaten and abused when they're pregnant than at any other time. and all this does is increase the protection for them for the entire portion of their pregnancy by increasing the penalties for the consequences
Speaker 243
1:33:48
of causing her to lose her baby. Oh, I hear what you're
Chair
Unverified
1:33:53
saying, and I appreciate that, Senator, and I recognize that you are amending Title V, which is in the criminal code,
but you're also amending Title 16, which is not. You're also dealing with a civil cause of action here. And I guess my response to that is I
Speaker 235
1:34:08
don't have a problem with that. As a new grandfather, if somebody did something to cause my granddaughter to lose
Speaker 234
1:34:15
that baby at four weeks or six weeks or eight weeks, to think that I would not have some civil remedy under that, I think certainly I
Chair
Unverified
1:34:25
should have. Okay. Then do you have any game plan of how those damages should be calculated?
Because you're talking about lifetime earnings for someone that, you know, it's best guess. As I said, I've been down here
Speaker 234
1:34:37
for General Assemblies, and I've never sponsored legislation that starts getting into specifying damages. Now, we may have some come out as a
Speaker 235
1:34:43
constitutional amendment, but at least at this point, there's no damages specified in this or most criminal or even reforms of civil litigation legislation that I'm aware of. All right. Representative Shepard, you're next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:35:01
And just a point of clarification, the wrongful death statute
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
1:35:05
already refers to a viable fetus, and I think you may have made that point, but we're just talking about changing it from viable fetus to an unborn child as defined in, I guess, Title V, correct? Correct. So it's already, I mean, that's already, whatever issues there might be with regard to workers' comp or otherwise, I mean, those issues already exist, And we're really just talking about the
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:35:28
difference between a viable fetus and an unborn child.
Exactly. And, again, the 12-week thing is really
Speaker 235
1:35:34
it presents some challenges because your employee may be under, you know, 11 weeks at one, two weeks there, they're
Speaker 234
1:35:41
going to be 13 weeks. So it removes that ambiguity. Representative Neal,
Speaker 249
1:35:45
you're next. Just a motion at the proper time. Representative Scott,
you're next for question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Hendron, how are you today? So far, so
Speaker 250
1:35:59
good. Okay. I've been testifying with the ACLU, so it's a good day.
It's a good day. I'm sure that the message you are sending is to the women all over the state of Arkansas. And that message is we want to do whatever we can to help protect you. And the loss of a child is truly the most devastating thing that a mother, that a woman can go through. I believe this bill will aid in whatever way to help the losses of those mothers for their children.
I hope your bill passes. Thank you. Is that
a don't you agree type question? Don't you agree? I do agree.
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:36:54
Representative Steele, no question. Representative Ballinger. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 25
1:36:59
Chairman. Matthew asked the same question. You got
it. Representative Walker. Yes. Let me understand this. You're not suggesting that Ms. Brownstein
Speaker 234
1:37:07
supports your bill, are you? No, I'm just enjoying the opportunity that we could work together on an amendment to make it where she doesn't hate it, maybe.
Well, could we have Ms. Brownstein set forth her objection to the bill since you voted? I think there
Speaker 235
1:37:20
will be a time, obviously, if you want to have
for and against, certainly. Well, I'd like to ask now, since she's part of
Speaker 243
1:37:27
your presentation and supported your amendment. I'd be glad
to have her join me, if that's okay with the chairman. Yeah, kind of forgetting that's my decision. So, Ms. Brownstein's already been
up, so there's somebody else that's been waiting that we're going to take first. Well, I wanted to ask a
question of her, since she made a comment regarding the amendment. We'll allow her the opportunity to come back, but there's a Dr. Dean Maldos.
I'm sorry if I mispronounced that. Okay, Ms. Brownstein,
Speaker 238
1:38:01
you're back. You'll just remind everybody who
you are, please. I'm Bettina Brownstein. I'm a cooperating attorney with the ACLU.
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
1:38:11
And what is your opposition to this bill based on? We think of these bills as personhood legislation to we are opposed to having an unborn classified as a person,
and we think that these kinds of bills are a step toward that. We were opposed to the 12-week limit in the previous version, and we are really opposed to calling someone a person with rights and civil rights and rights under the criminal code, someone from conception or fertilization, we think that's a step to, and we've seen that used then to promote anti-abortion legislation and laws. So we are opposed philosophically.
Would you agree that this could also be perceived as a civil rights bill because it enlarges
charges the right of women to collect damages for injuries to whatever the defined child is sustained while on the job, which is somewhat similar to the intent of Title VII. Women are not to be discriminated against in the employment workplace. And apparently here, if a
woman has a miscarriage while in the workplace, the employer may be subjected
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
1:39:32
to substantial damages. I understood the, I heard the questioning by Representative Kazay, am I pronouncing that correctly? Sorry. And I understand his concern for potential employers, but our position is that the rights of women are amply protected without this type of legislation, and that there are no separate rights at that stage for the unborn,
and that the women themselves will be amply protected for injury that would be done to them.
Thank you very much. Were there any other questions? Seeing none, it looks like we also had Sarah Swanda. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. There's nobody else
signed to speak for or against the bill. Senator, would you like to close for your bill? I think you've heard everything. The
Speaker 235
1:40:26
only thing I'll point out, again, is with regard to all the what-ifs and this could and workman's comp and all that kind of stuff,
realize every state that touches Arkansas protects life under the criminal statute to conception. This is not earth-breaking legislation. This is legislation that says that when a criminal causes the death of a mother who's trying to have her child, there can be some fairly serious consequences,
Speaker 234
1:40:48
which is what I think there should be. So I'd appreciate a good vote. Senator's closed for his
bill. What's the pleasure of the committee? Got a motion. Representative Ballinger, do pass. All those in favor,
say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it.
Congratulations, Senator. You passed your bill. Thank you. Senator Irvin, are you, is Senator Irvin around? Senator Erblich, Bill, are you presenting? Thank you. This is
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:41:30
Senate Bill 705. You recognize Senate Bill 705. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I served for the past two years as chair of Children and Youth Committee in the Senate, and we meet during the interim with the House Committee. And part of what we do is we review quarterly the infant mortality deaths that have occurred in Arkansas. and basically what we're doing, and it's compiled through the Arkansas Child Death Review Panel, and basically all this bill does, it was brought to me by the Department of Children and Family Services,
and it just directs the coroner to notify them as well so that we can have a more thorough report so that we understand how these deaths have occurred. This is very important for us when we're looking at children that might have died while they're in foster care or while they're in transition in different areas and different places. And, you know, it's something that really requires a lot more of our attention, I think, as a legislature, these quarterly reports, and it tries to give us just more clear information
so that when we're investigating but also when we're creating policy, we know exactly what's going on and how we can try to prevent it from
happening. Questions from committee? Seeing none, I don't believe
anybody signed to speak for or against. Representative Bain, you're recognized for a question. Nobody signed to speak for or against the bill. Senator, do you wish to close for your bill? Representative Bain, most your motion.
Got a motion due pass. Representative Bain, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you so much. All right, is there anybody else? Representative Steele, you're recognized. Which bill, Representative Steele? You're recognized, present House Bill 1366.
Representative Steele, you're recognized to present House Bill 1366. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:44:17
Chairman. Members, this is the final step in what we've been charged with this legislative session
in trying to address the problem of the Administration of Justice Fund, at least I think it's the final step, in trying to resolve the problem with the Administration of Justice Fund. As you all know, we've had a lot of problems with that fund. It's taken a dramatic hit over the past few years. And as a result of that, we recently passed, I believe it was SB 306 that Representative fines carried that helped define some areas of court costs and old fines and things like that
to try to raise that revenue to protect those trial court assistants. And we believe that's going to resolve the issue for the most part. But still, when that fund runs low, we always run the risk of, with all the programs and all the personnel involved in that fund, we always run the risk of not being able to pay essential personnel like trial court assistants, which are absolutely essential to the Administration of Justice. A lot of other things in that fund are also very important, but we're not talking about keeping the courthouse doors open.
So what this bill does is it just prioritizes those positions that are funded fully out of the Administration of Justice fund above the other programs in the fund. There are a whole lot of examples of other things in the fund. Everything from legal aid to prosecutor coordinator's office has some funds come out of there. several others, but this just makes sure that those folks that depend entirely for their salary, their salary comes off the top of the fund, namely trial court assistance.
So I'll be happy to answer any questions. This is Representative Hammers' bill. I think it's been amended a couple of times, and he asked me to run it today if he wasn't able to get back from his special order. So
I'll try to answer questions. Representative Steele, do you know if the amendments were engrossed? I believe
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:46:13
they are because I can see that the co-sponsors are already on this bill and that was part of the amendments. So they should
be. Give us just one second, Representative Steele.
We're just going to make sure they're on
Speaker 150
1:46:37
another amendment here. Yeah, no, no.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:47:04
Oh, Mr. Cavendish just pointed out it does say as in gross on the top of the bill. And as I mentioned, the co-sponsors are already in gross. So it should be, but... ...is
Speaker 150
1:47:13
incorporated into what's already been done. So he's fine. He can take the
lead and run it. Thank you, Mr. Kavanagh. All right. I'd have a question. Chair has a question briefly, Representative Steele. You said this is the final step. This makes the basically people over programs. Is that the way to... Would
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:47:30
you agree with that? That's the way it's been summarized, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, there are several programs in that Administration of Justice Fund. Some concern was drawn that the law schools, since they have their own portion of court costs, may suffer from this. That's not the case. Their fund comes out of that $165 court cost, does not go through Administration of Justice. So that particular law will not be affected whatsoever. But there are programs, and we don't believe anything will be affected after our funding fix, but just to make sure, it's to make sure the personnel are paid over programs.
That's correct. I think you're going to have good luck on your trial settings. Any questions from the rest
of the committee? Seeing none, nobody was signed up to speak for or against the bill. Are you closed for the bill? I'm closed for the bill. I appreciate it. We've got a couple of motions here. We'll start with Representative McElroy. What's your motion? Got a motion due pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, members. Is there anybody else here ready to present a bill? Last chance. Anybody else here to present a bill?
Do I have a motion to adjourn? Got a motion to adjourn. Representative McElroy, all those in favor say aye. Aye. have it
Agenda
HB1708
HB1440
HB1856
SB433
HB1503
HB1447
HB1784
HB2146
SB259
SB417
SB705
HB1366
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Marshall Wright Chair
Unverified
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Speaker 10
Representative John W. Walker Chair
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 35
Speaker 43
Speaker 45
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 79
Speaker 80
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 108
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
Representative Mary L. Slinkard Chair
Unverified
Representative Charlene Fite Chair
Unverified
Speaker 145
Speaker 161
Speaker 162
Speaker 165
Speaker 167
Speaker 52
Representative Sue Scott Chair
Unverified
Speaker 169
Speaker 150
Speaker 204
Speaker 206
Speaker 63
Speaker 208
Speaker 212
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
John Feltz
Unverified
Speaker 226
Speaker 227
Speaker 42
Speaker 228
Speaker 230
Speaker 235
Speaker 238
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
Speaker 101
Speaker 96
Speaker 234
Speaker 100
Speaker 236
Speaker 243
Speaker 249
Speaker 250
Speaker 25
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified