House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (9)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1014
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…quite a while. And when I introduced it in the first form, House Bill 1014, which is on your deferred list, it was not a perfect bill,…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1354
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1354”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1417
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “10 o'clock. Representative Harris, are you ready to present House Bill 1417?”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1448
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…Which one do you want to present first? Thank you. This is House Bill 1448. Okay. You're recognized. Go ahead. Thank you. Colleagues,…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1021
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1021”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1250
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1250”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1414
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…to set a special order of business for this next Tuesday on House Bill 1414 by Representative Hammer. We're going to set it for next Tu…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1450
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1450”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB307
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB307”
|
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
Speaker 2
0:00
House Bill 1354. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start off by telling the committee how good it is to
Speaker 4
0:12
be back. Good to have you back. I really missed you guys. I'm running a bill this morning, to give you a little background on it, called my Infamous Crime Bill. And I really don't know what I'm doing with it. Let me start off, let me give you a definition of an infamous crime, which I'm sure most people, especially on the committee, would be enlightened to know.
Infamous crime is a protein term, which, of course, everybody knows is volatile changes frequently. Under Anglo-American common law, an infamous crime has been a crime for which part of the punishment was infamy. This is a disgrace or loss of reputation, so that one who committed it would be declared ineligible to serve on a jury, hold public office, or testify. This included perjury, treason, fraud, any crime punishable by imprisonment in a penitentiary or suicide.
Infamous crimes have also been defined as those inconsistent with the common law principles of honesty and humanity. In civil law jurisdictions, the equivalent of an infamous crime have included the crimes of piracy and bribing a witness. While a majority of states have constitutionally and statutorily provisions requiring the removal of public officials convicted of certain crimes, including infamous crimes, most states have not provided a statutory definition of what qualifies as an infamous crime.
In some jurisdictions, conviction of a felony may be considered an infamous crime. In other jurisdictions, conviction of an offense, criminal or civil, is sufficient to qualify as an infamous crime. Until 2005, the Arkansas Supreme Court had not ruled or nor defined the term. While there is general agreement that the term, broadly speaks, appears to refer to crimes involving an element of moral turpitude that carry the stigma of public opprobrium,
There is no clear, concise definition or bright-line rule. And with that being said, trying to clear up what an infamous crime is, I'm sure now you could define it for me, I have come up with a little bill that when I started out, I got to assemble a legal team because I had to have some help on it. And we went, been working on this thing for close to a year on what an infamous crime is because I wanted it to be big. to something. I mean, I didn't even realize that suicide was involved in it.
Instead of a prosecutor out there could arbitrarily go and kick anybody out of office for anything that he deemed as an infamous crime because there is no clear definition of it. So I started my meetings with the Attorney General and ended up having four different meetings with him, trying to define what an infamous crime is, all in the same time being told that I really can't define what an attempted crime is because it's in the Constitution. But since there is no real definition and the
Supreme Court hasn't really defined it, then I kind of got a little backing to go ahead and go for it. And so this is where I'm at. And so I've arrived at the best that I can do. Does it really do anything? I don't know. Could it? Yeah, it could. If a judge and a prosecutor so chose to use enough common sense to use this as a guideline for what the legislature has intended, hopefully, for an infamous crime to be. And with that definition of an infamous crime, I'll stop and ask if there's any questions.
Of which forth, I may have to... Representative Nichols, you're recognized. Now, I heard you mention suicide. Are we going to be voting for... Are they going to be on the ballot, or... What did you mean? Well, that was a term that
Speaker 6
4:07
once was used. It could have been a suicide. So obviously if somebody's committed suicide, you don't
Speaker 4
4:13
have to worry about them. They've already taken a suicide.
Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. Right. There you go. Representative Fite, you're recognized.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
4:22
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Branscombe, in recent days we've been seeing the definition of infamous crime as basically anything a judge says it is, and we've seen it used for political purposes. I'm wondering if there is anything
in your bill that perhaps puts a statute of limitations on looking back and finding an infamous crime for someone that perhaps we can say the infamous crime has to have been within the last 20 years.
Speaker 2
4:54
Well, there is no limitations in this bill because it was under my interpretation, and understanding because it's in the Constitution that
Speaker 4
5:01
really the Supreme Court is the only one that can define limitations, and I wasn't given that latitude
on it. Yeah, I know. Representative Steele,
you're good. Representative Walker, you're recognized. From what I heard you read, indicating that this is a sort of vague term and it has shifting
meaning, it seems like the offense of driving while under the influence could be regarded as an infamous crime, especially if it's second offense or higher because it could result and a penitentiary term. And if that were the case, I don't know about this term of the legislature or perhaps the last term when I began, but in the past I have some recollection that a lot of our members over history have been involved in DUI.
Speaker 28
6:05
And that would have meant then that they were guilty of infamous crimes and would have been
Speaker 4
6:11
ineligible to serve. That's correct, because if a prosecutor, in my understanding of it, and you know a lot better than I would, But if he chose to go after you because of that and said, no, I think this is an infamous crime, then he could
probably do it. Well, he doesn't have to call it an infamous crime. All he has to do is just call it
DUI because it then becomes DUI, second offense, and then it becomes a jailable offense in the discretion of the court.
old country boy, a farmer. Well, I'm trying to sort of help you in a sense, if I can. It would seem that many of the things that were called infamous at the time of the adoption of the Constitution around 1836 are no longer infamous. I mean, they have just become ordinary. So people who engage in certain conduct now that was similar to that then are not engaging in crimes that are so heinous as they were then.
Speaker 2
7:17
Exactly. That's an excellent point. And that's what I was trying to
Speaker 36
7:25
help clarify. Thank you. Representative Vines. Representative Branscombe, welcome back to Judiciary. Once upon a time I remember you being a part of our illustrious group.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
7:36
And I miss you, too. Just as a point of clarification for everybody, could you speak to the fact the three sections of this bill, I believe two of them are not codified and the reason being for that and why you've chosen to go that route?
Speaker 4
7:51
That's because of what I was told to do. You guys. Well, I was trying to throw you a softball. Help me out on that. because it's in the Constitution and we
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
8:05
were trying to stay in the venues of what we legally could and couldn't define. Okay. So what you're doing with this bill then is basically giving some intent into the notes of these sections of the
Speaker 2
8:16
code to help any future reference. Is that correct? Exactly. It's like,
Speaker 4
8:19
let me give you, if 30 years ago a teenager had went into Walmart
and stolen a Snickers bar and he admitted to this misdemeanor Well, so now he's holding a public office, and this prosecutor doesn't like him for a political reason. He can say, all right, I'm going to go after you because that was an infamous crime when you were 15 years old or whatever. And he could, under the current statutes, could be removed from office. So my intent was to put some common sense into it, which is a lot harder than what I first thought. No, you can't do that. That's not what the legislator's intent is.
It's to use some common sense. No, that's crazy. You can't do something stupid like that. Let's don't do that. Let's go what an infamous crime. I wanted to make it big. I wanted to take out little simple stuff. But I'm constrained to what I could and couldn't do. This is the best we could come up with. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
9:15
Chair. Motion in proper time. Any other questions from committee? Nobody signed up to speak for or against. We've got a motion from Representative Gillum, I believe, first. Representative Gillum, what's the motion?
Chair
Unverified
9:24
I yield a co-sponsor. Vice Chair Bynes, we've got a motion. Motion do pass. Got a motion do pass. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, looks
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
9:37
like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. All right, without objection, I'm going to set a special order of business for this next Tuesday on House Bill 1414 by Representative Hammer. We're going to set it for next Tuesday, actually without objection, at
Chair
Unverified
9:52
10 o'clock. Representative Harris, are you ready to present House Bill 1417?
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
9:56
Representative Harris, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and committee members. Today I want to, I need to amend the bill 1417 to add names to the bill. Any questions
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
10:21
on the amendment? Seeing none,
Chair
Unverified
10:25
got a motion to accept and adopt the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, nay. Looks like the ayes have
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
10:36
it. You're recognized presenting the bill as amended. All right. Thank you, sir. 14-17 is an act to extend the concealed handgun license exemption to the current and former certified law enforcement officers, auxiliary law enforcement officers, bailiffs, and retired law enforcement officers, and for other purposes. This particular bill was brought to me in my first term after our first session,
and so I've held on to it for quite a while. And when I introduced it in the first form, House Bill 1014, which is on your deferred list, it was not a perfect bill, and with the help of Representative Vines, adding some more language to it, also the Arkansas State Police, the Sheriff's Association, and also with my local Washington County Sheriff, Tim Helder, which I respect very much, we added more information to this. And what this does, it extends for retired sheriffs
and actually certified law enforcement to be able to have concealed carry. And we put it where after 10 years of service they may carry, have the ability to actually be able to carry like I can. I've taken the course. I've done the full-day course. And I had a neighbor who is a sheriff's deputy come to me, and he didn't quite understand why someone of my stature who is an educator of preschool children can just take the full-day course, yet he has taken extensive courses to be a sheriff's deputy.
And I can get it in one day, but he takes the courses. So we just wanted to be able to cover him. And so that's what this bill does. And there's been a lot of gun bills come through, but I think this bill actually puts guns in the hands of the right people. So I'd love to have your support. What about Jennifer Steele? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to ask
you if the other bills did not put guns in the hands of the wrong people, but I'm not going to put you on the spot on that one. I'm going to ask you about the bill.
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
12:38
Oh, no, I support all the gun bills that have come through. I have an A rating. I have an A rating from the NRA. Okay. Now I
will have an A-plus rating. I'm trying to flip through this and read it, and I'm having a hard time getting my machine to work. But does this include, what about elected or deputy prosecuting attorneys? Does it
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
13:02
include them, or have you had a discussion about that? You know, we've had
a lot that's wanted to be added. We've also had constables wanted to be added.
But this time I just want to keep with
Thank you. Rep. Nichols, you're recognized. How would this, you know, we had a former law enforcement officer in California. He went on a rampage and, what, killed three people. Would that person be entitled to a concealed carry permit in Arkansas? No,
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
13:36
it specifically talks about that in the bill. I mean, there's just like a concealed carry.
I mean, there's rules in the concealed handgun carrying law that would prohibit people from having it. So the guidelines stay the same. Okay.
Chair
Unverified
13:58
All right. Any other questions from committee? Nobody signed up to speak. Mr. Walker,
Speaker 72
14:04
you're recognized. Thank you. Mr. Harris, Representative
Harris. I have several questions, if I may. Will these former law enforcement people be required to apply for permits?
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
14:18
They will have to. If you don't mind, I'm going to have
them. Do you know? I do know. I've talked to the Sheriff's Association, and
he can come and help me answer that if he wouldn't mind. Let me, before he answers, will these persons who are former law enforcement persons be in a position to have their names published so that people in the populace can
know who they are who have these guns because they are former law enforcement officers?
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
14:52
It talks about it in the bill. I mean, there will be a list given to the
Arkansas State Police. I'm talking about to an ordinary person who, I know
of a number of situations in Arkansas where there have been police officers, some of whom may not ever have been charged with crimes, but who engaged in conduct that was not appropriate. And for that reason may have been encouraged to resign or retire or enter into another profession.
would those persons in effect then effectively be absolved of their past conduct which caused them
to leave their profession? No, that's addressed in the bill. That
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
15:32
was one of the objections in House Bill 1014, and I agree with that objection, Representative Walker. And so that is placed in here. If there's anything in their file or they had to resign, they cannot get that concealed. But that deals with anything
in the file. Would there be an opportunity for public comment?
For instance, I have this egregious case where a man took a lady before deciding what to do with her as to an arrest, and he carried around all day long and ultimately had sex with her and then asked her not to tell it. He subsequently resigned, and no charges were filed by the prosecuting attorney in a nearby county against that person. Now, under your bill, that person would be entitled to have a gun. and to use it any way he wanted to and be entitled to some kind of presumption
because he is a former law enforcement officer. Now, that doesn't seem to make any sense nor be right. Representative Harris, let
Chair
Unverified
16:36
me, before you answer, I think I might want to ask clear something up, if that's okay with you. Yes, sir. They
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
16:42
still have to comply with all the requirements of other concealed handguns. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay.
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
16:50
And we were very clear that if they have something in their record, that this was going to not allow them to have a concealed carry.
Because we understand, just like the general public, there's policemen that do things that are bad. But that's in all
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
17:12
thank you. Representative Scott, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would
you agree that our police officers, like everyone, is retiring? They are retiring at much younger ages, so we're not talking about the very, very, very elderly.
We're talking about police officers who retire at an age that some of us at this table are. And as you can see, we certainly haven't slowed down or retired. So we're talking about fine, upstanding citizens who still have a lot of good work they could
Speaker 54
17:45
do. Thank you, Representative Scott. And
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
17:48
that was going to be in my opening statement, but sometimes the first time I ever presented in this committee, it's very nerve-wracking because I do know we have some attorneys on this committee, and I am not one.
But that was my point in doing this. Just like the military and these law enforcement officers risk their lives for us, And I think this is just something we can do for them, just afforded this simple thing. And my thought is, why not give it to people who actually know how to use these weapons, and then it affords our families, my wife who's at home by herself when I'm here in Little Rock, more protection out in the community. That's what this bill is about. So thank you.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
18:34
Any other questions from committee? Nobody signed it up to speak for or against
the bill. what's the pleasure of the committee got a motion by Representative Steele Representative Steele what's your motion got a motion do pass as amended got a motion do pass as amended all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed
looks like the ayes have it congratulations you passed your bill thank you is there anybody in the audience
ready to present a bill? Anybody in the audience ready to present a
Chair
Unverified
19:12
bill? Representative Fite, are you ready to present your bills? Representative Fite, looks like you've got three bills on the calendar. Without objection, I'll just let you present them in the order that you wish to proceed as you're ready to go. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I only have
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
19:34
two today. One is being passed over. Okay. Which one would you like passed
over? I already gave that information to Mr.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
19:43
Ralston. Okay. We got it. I'm sure we got
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
19:47
it. Go ahead. Which one do you want to present first? Thank you. This is House Bill 1448. Okay. You're recognized. Go ahead. Thank you. Colleagues, this is a bill I bring before you from the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association. The purpose of this bill is to give the courts the discretion to order a permanent no-contact order in certain cases. Victims of egregious crimes are burdened by their assailants attempting to continue
to contact them after the assailant's sentence is no longer in effect. At the current time, these victims have no legal recourse unless they are re-victimized. This bill is meant to address the victims' needs when the urgency of the crime and the attention of the court, law enforcement, probation, and parole have all passed, and few people other than the victim recall what actually happened. Right now, rape does not have a permanent no-contact provision that only applies if
the defendant enters a plea or when the defendant's conviction is affirmed. Also the consequences of violating such an order after the defendant is off paper is only through contempt. Reasons to include domestic violent victims, even though they have access to orders of provision, are that the victims of the most egregious domestic crimes have the same problems as victims in the most egregious nondomestic cases, and that they do not qualify for an
order of protection when it has been 10 or 15 years since the crime was committed, and only qualify for one if there was re-victimization. So this law would correct that problem. And with your permission, I would like to invite David Gibbons, the prosecuting attorney for the 5th Judicial District, and Heather Patton, Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney for the 5th Judicial district to join me and answer your questions
Chair
Unverified
21:54
mr. given miss Patton if
you'll just inform everybody of who you are you're recognized
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
22:08
let me add may I add that this bill would give the courts the discretion to order a permanent no contact order that's the intent of this bill
Speaker 96
22:17
Heather Patton deputy prosecutor the 5th judicial district and I'm David
Speaker 98
22:20
Gibbons prosecuting attorney for the 5th judicial district are you out here
Chair
Unverified
22:31
to just take questions or present or that's
correct we are just to take questions representative Nichols you recognize for question thank you mr. chairman and I see my law school classmate at the end of the table oh one thing and I don't know exactly how this would work but under Arkansas's Constitution if you are a felon and you have completed your sentence you're eligible to to vote and I'm just wondering if you have a lifetime
no contact ban as part of the process here, does that do away with their right to vote for life? Well, I have to tell my old law
school friend, you know, I don't know the answer to that. I do know this, that this would be, this is part of the sentencing provisions, so it could very well be an argument to that, yes, but I don't know the actual answer, no. But that's a very salient point, yes.
So I think you have a number of crimes listed here, and if that's part of the sentence, then I could see where a county clerk may refuse that person the
right to vote. That could be. I don't have an absolute answer for you. However, if you look at the crimes, you'll see that they're not frivolous crimes or trivial crimes. As you saw, they're murders, they're rapes.
first- and second-degree batteries. Yes, I understand that, but we do, you know, felons can vote eventually, and I'm afraid
that even though these are reprehensible crimes and everything, that's an aspect of the bill that gives me a little bit of concern, so I don't know
Chair
Unverified
24:27
how it could be addressed. Thank you,
Speaker 109
24:30
Mr. Chairman. Representative Kazay, you recognize your question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not exactly sure who to field this question to, but whoever, if it itches on you, scratch it, please. We'll sort
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
24:40
it out between us. Is this similar to the domestic relations order of protection?
Speaker 115
24:47
No, it isn't. And if I can address that through kind of talking through the genesis of this idea of the bill. I had a victim in Johnson County, and the defendant was getting out of jail. and he's going flat wouldn't be on parole you know no way for us to have any supervision over him and he wanted to move next door to her and you know we got to think we're like well let's see if we can get an order of protection well there was no immediate need the crime had happened
you know 10 years ago maybe longer before my time and so there's not that urgency or immediate need that the protection order is meant to address. Also, the protection order, I think Representative Fite mentioned this, there has to be a familial relationship or a dating relationship. This particular order does not require that. So does that answer your question? I think so. Mr. Chair,
Speaker 43
25:49
if I could have a little latitude and ask some follow-up.
Speaker 118
25:53
Sure. Go ahead. Well, the statute here, or the proposed statute that I'm looking
Speaker 109
26:02
at, I guess on, what, page 2, beginning on line 15 and then going on to page 3 where it talks about the various conditions. It seems like there are, like on line 36 of page 2, all terms and conditions of a permanent no-contact order shall be reduced to writing.
but we don't have those terms and conditions here. Is that right? That is correct. So what do you foresee the court doing with issuing these terms and conditions of a no-contact order? That would be,
Speaker 113
26:38
I think, the necessity of notice, that they have
Speaker 115
26:40
to be on notice and it has to be reduced to writing, just like any sentence or any no-contact order or protective order is reduced to writing so that the defendant knows what they can and cannot do. Okay.
If I could, I'd like to point out that this is done at the time of sentencing, after the person's been convicted. So the person's going to be in front of the judge, and when the judge pronounces a sentence, this will just be part of it. So it will be reduced to writing. He'll know what the conditions are, and it will follow just like the normal
Speaker 118
27:15
judgment conviction that he gets. Okay. Now,
Speaker 109
27:18
as you all have mentioned in this statute, various felony offenses that would qualify somebody to be under this order.
naturally anyone who's been adjudicated guilty on these offenses would be barred from owning a firearm but if they chose to have a spouse or some other family member that they resided with would their term and condition also bar that innocent spouse from owning a firearm i don't see how that could i mean well i guess i guess what i'm really asking is how can you comply with your order of protection if one of your conditions is not to possess a firearm.
Oh, I understand what you're saying. And the
Speaker 129
28:00
firearm lives in the house with them. This would not have the firearm provision of the
Speaker 115
28:05
order of protection. This would not have the firearm provision of the order of protection. This would be, you know, a separate type of order.
Speaker 109
28:16
So am I understanding right that, as you all understand it, there will be, like, say, if someone is released from prison and goes home to live with their parents, their parents won't be disarmed by this?
No. So they will be permitted to live in the same house if mom and daddy have
ten guns? Well, absent the fact that they're a felon, what this is concerned about is contacting a victim or a witness. The order of protection is a different matter. That's another
Speaker 135
28:43
difference between this and the order of protection. No, that would have no impact on them.
Speaker 109
28:48
But that term and condition would be subject to the court. And that's really where my concern is. If the judge says, get the firearms out of the house, as this is constructed, there's no protection from that in this statute, is there?
Well, the judge could do that on a suspended sentence or order of probation. This is not directed toward firearms. This is directed toward keeping a person who has raped an individual from having contact with that person. Whether they have a firearm in their possession 20 years after they've been convicted is immaterial. This is to protect a victim and a witness or a witness from potential harassment or intimidation. That's what this is designed for. This is what the judge is going to address when he assesses this no-contact order on a permanent basis.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
29:37
Are you finished, Representative Zay? Okay. Before we get to the next question, I'm going to step in here. So what you're going to ask as a judge at the time of the sentencing to make the
determinations of how this person may or may not be rehabilitated through
Speaker 142
29:53
their punishment or their sentencing? No. What we're asking for at the time of the sentencing, we will
say it will be incumbent upon the prosecuting attorney to put forth evidence to convince the judge by a proponent of the evidence that this person, A, has been convicted of one of these crimes that appear before you,
and B, that the person will be inclined to intimidate, to harass, or annoy a victim or a witness in the case. It's not a matter of rehabilitation. It's a matter of protecting witnesses and victims from people who have committed these crimes after their period of probation or parole has ended. Okay,
Chair
Unverified
30:35
but that's still prior to them being punished.
You said it's at sentencing, so they haven't gotten their punishment yet. So what you're saying is you want them to be punished and the termination to be made at that time, whether or not they can go through any programs or jail time to be rehabilitated, prior to them having the opportunity to have any of that done, you're asking for the judge to make the
termination of no contact order. Is that right? I'm making, we're asking for that to happen, but we have a provision in here that at any time while this no contact order is in effect, either the defendant or the prosecutor can come in and ask that it be modified.
So if the rehabilitation appears to be exemplary and there's no problem, then I don't see any reason why the defendant could not come in, petitioned to have the no-contact order dissolved, and it would be dissolved. Thank you. Rep. John Steele, you're
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. I understand the concern here. One question I've got is there aren't any misdemeanors included in this list, correct? No, sir. Okay. Some of these, I think some of the battery twos and things would be D felonies. Is that the lowest form here, D felony?
The lowest form would be the simple second-degree battery would be a class D felony. All the rest of them are Cs or above. Most of them are substantially above. Is there not a
constitutional problem with a sentence beyond the maximum sentence for a D felony? For example, you couldn't agree to a probation for 20 years when a maximum is six years on a D felony, correct? That's correct. So how could you basically, in essence, sentence someone to life for a penalty that has a maximum of six years, a part of a sentence that's going to last for life when the D felony maximum is six years?
What we're doing is this is not part of – this goes beyond the actual sentence. This is just a restriction that goes beyond that. I don't consider it – that actually goes to Representative Nichols' question as to how much of a sentence is it involved. We feel that it passes constitutional muster because of the way it's set up. But it is
a criminal sanction. It's not some kind of civil order, correct? It would be a criminal sanction, yes.
It would be a criminal sanction in excess of the maximum allowable on decon.
But the sentence itself has been set by the legislature, and now then you're saying this is another aspect to it. So it's the same body doing. It's not like a constitutional prohibition against this. You're saying that for these crimes, this sentence is available, and that would make it illegal. Okay. One more
question, if I might be sure. Yeah, go ahead. Is there any way after –
if someone goes to court on a battery, too, They get convicted, everything, it's all disposed of.
Right. And then later a victim wants to raise
this, come back and get a life no contact based on that sentence. Is that possible? No,
sir. No, sir. That's how that was done. That's done at the time of the sentencing. And I hope I did make myself clear that this business, that's the reason this is set up as an amendment to the criminal code is because there is no constitutional prohibition against this. It's the legislature's sentencing scheme, and this fits within it.
Chair
Unverified
33:46
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Walker, you're recognized.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, do you have any empirical basis for promoting this legislation? Well, by
Speaker 158
34:01
empirical, I can tell you that we have. Well, first of all, I mean,
do you have any data that we can look at other than have the testimony come from you as to what you want as a prosecutor? Is there any evidence to show
that this is a problem of some magnitude in the state of Arkansas?
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
34:21
Any evidence? If I may, we have today with us someone from the Coalition for Arkansans Against Domestic Violence. She might be able to provide us, and I
believe she's signed in. but the prosecutor can't tell us
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
34:38
my concern is this yes he can
tell us I just thought she would be able to add additional information but I'd like to know since this is a prosecutor sponsored bill and it has a tendency to extend sentences beyond those authorized by statute
and it also has a tendency to wreak havoc in families especially when you consider the fact that many kids are charged in families with felony offenses against their siblings. And in those situations, oftentimes, a person can be convicted in a juvenile setting, and that does apply. And then that person being given a lifetime no-contact order would be, in effect, removed from a house where his parents are,
and then there would be all other kinds of problems. And we know that siblings fight a lot of times, and they then make up, even though the fights are horrendous sometimes. So I'd not like to get into a situation simply where people have domestic situations that may be uncontrollable because of some circumstances beyond their immediate psychological control. And then they're in a situation where they are extricated from families. There's no possibility of reconciliation.
They cannot meet at funerals or family gatherings. for fear of being further punished. Well, that's right, Representative Walker, and that
points out two things. Number one, this is not mandatory. It has to be presented by the evidence the victim will obviously play a role in whether that's what the victim wants or not. And two, this particular proposed bill has a provision in it that it can be modified at any time at the request not only of the state but also of the defendant.
So that addresses those issues, which are very real, and we understand that. So that's how that's addressed. Now,
does that create a cost? The cost would be... Well, first of all, does it create a
cost? And if so, have you all calculated that cost? Having calculated the cost, I can tell you this, Representative Walker, that we looked at the prosecutors, asked them how often they thought this would be utilized. We got a varying response, as you can imagine. The response varied from five over in the first district to a higher course in Pulaski County.
That's how often it would be utilized. As far as to determine cost, what's important is how often will they be violated. That, of course, I can't answer. I can tell you my instincts tell me that many people modify their behavior based on what laws you folks pass. And if you pass a law and say that we're going to allow for a permanent no-contact order, And if you don't do that, then you've committed a felony. A person who has been in prison, as these persons most likely will have been,
are going to pay attention to that. So I suspect just the passage of the law itself will have a salutary effect. I don't think it's going to add that
Speaker 160
37:40
much to our prison population. I say that sincerely. I think the threat of it
will serve as a sufficient deterrent. Representative Wagner, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question also was in reference to the modification process. You know, the word permanent concerns me a little bit, but can you speak more to the modification process?
Like the Chair mentioned, you know, a criminal serves his time, he's rehabilitated, but is he going to have access to maybe the public defender that represented him in the first place to come back and modify this protection order? Is he going to do it on his own? Speak to
that, if you would. I'll be happy to. I can't address the actual what I would call
the fine details about how he gets his attorney. All right? I mean, I don't know that. That's going to have a lot to do with the Public Defenders Commission as to how they want to do it.
It is a sentence, as Representative Nichols has pointed out. So I would assume that they have some sort of right. But they can have an attorney, and they can petition the court to modify that permanent order of protection. And, as you know, that's done sex offender registration, things of that nature. So, I mean, the safety valve is there, and it should be there, for like Representative Walker pointed out. But there is one thing I would like to point out on Representative Walker's question about the cost.
I say this, and I say it sincerely. I think that the cost to the state of Arkansas as a result of this will be minimal. I think that the protection that it will afford and the well-being that it will afford not only victims but also witnesses will be great, not so much because a person will be found to be in violation of it, but the threat, the fact that it's there. Thank you,
Chair
Unverified
39:31
Mr. Chair. Representative Scott, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
39:38
Representative, may I ask you this question? Can you tell me how this will help our children? What
benefit is this going to be to the children? You know, that's one of my great passions always is the safety of our children. Yes, and at this
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
39:54
time, if I may call back our representative from the Coalition Against Domestic Violence. I had really wanted to
hear from her and the impact that this would have on families. has she signed up have
Chair
Unverified
40:08
you signed up may i also address this as
Speaker 115
40:14
well because i deal with a lot
of children who are victims of crimes and one of the questions they always ask is do i have to see him again and you have to be honest and explain okay there's a no contact order as part of their sentence, but that's going to end someday, all right? And that's a, you know, conversation you have with them and their parents. But, you know, I just wanted to address that because I think this does, you're able to look that child in the eye and say, no, you don't. We can offer you
some protection for the rest of
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
40:53
your life. Representative Scott, you wanted to follow up? Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My follow-up question
is this, okay? Let's say the children of that perpetrator at the age of 26, 28 decide that they want to get in contact with the person who committed a heinous crime against their mother, would they be able to?
How would that follow up years down the road?
Speaker 115
41:22
Well, as we discussed, there is a process to modify if that is something that they wanted to take up. So that is going to
Speaker 166
41:33
be available to them. Okay. Thank you. I didn't
Chair
Unverified
41:37
mean to take time away from you. I believe Representative Walker, you had a question. If
anything, let's just keep this brief. Mr. Walker, if we can, please. I'm concerned about the cost of this because this has the possibility of imposing, in effect, a lifetime sentence on some people, the number of whom is unknown.
and we know that the cost of incarceration in prison is at least $20,000 to $25,000 a year. So if you're going to have 20 to 50 people perhaps in a year's time possibly submitted to long-term incarceration, you're looking at millions of dollars being added to the prison cost at a time when we are trying to get some control on that. So the fiscal impact should take into account that
reality other than the notion that, well, it's not going to be a big deal.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
42:31
Representative Walker, this would not add to anyone's prison time. This is after they are released from prison saying that they cannot contact their
former victim. This is a victim's right, Bill. Well, here's the problem. If a person violates it, it's up to six years incarceration thereafter. So six years times
$20,000 is $120,000, and if it's 20 people, that's more than $2,200,000.
Speaker 115
43:06
I don't know about the numbers, but I will say that with the types of crimes that we are talking about, these are the types of crimes that people generally ask serious sentences on. So any incarceration rate increases would be, I would think, at least 10 years down the road from the time if it were enacted. Representative Nichols, you're recognized. I was
just asking where's Darren because I'm sure he would have a question about how will this impact Act 570, is that it?
That's right. 570, so it does look like it will increase the prison population. I know that's a concern of Representative Williams, so I just wanted to make that point. Representative Broadway, you're
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
44:05
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that this bill is very well-intentioned, and I like what you're attempting to do. But my concern arises in perhaps the lesser crimes that are covered under this,
where I see a lot of domestic battering and marital relationships where children are not victims and their fathers are released or their mothers. And I see this as basically stopping a parent from ever having any further contact with their child, and particularly if it's up to the victim. I see where victims can manipulate that process. And if a person has been incarcerated, has truly been rehabilitated,
it concerns me about another roadblock for them to be allowed to perhaps be barred from having a relationship with their children. if their former spouse or mother or father of their child does not desire that and wants to keep that permanent no-contact order in place. And that causes me pause. How would you address that other than saying, well, it can be they can petition?
Well, but if it's up to the victim to petition or give their consent, I see real problems here. Well, I would say that
Speaker 115
45:38
it takes two in a relationship. So, you know, I'm thinking in terms of two adults here. Is that what you're thinking? Are you thinking an adult and a child victim? No, no, I'm
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
45:51
not talking about a child victim at all. I'm talking about two parents.
They get in a terrible fight. Somebody gets a limb broken, some kind of heinous, terrible domestic battering where the perpetrator is convicted of a felony. And when he's sentenced, it's a permanent no-contact order. And he's rehabilitated, and he gets out, but the victim wants that permanent no-contact order. And this reaches to the fact where there can be no contact in any way via text, via telephone, any way for this person who is being released from prison, has done what they're supposed to do,
to be able to go back and try to resume a relationship with a child who was not involved in the violent incident. Mr. Chair, am I recognized? Are
Speaker 183
46:47
you finished, Representative Broadway? Well, yes. You're recognized. I'm Rebecca Riley with the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Our membership is composed of 32 organizational members across the state that provide direct services to victims of violence.
To answer your question, Representative Broadway, I know firsthand as a direct service, previously a direct service provider, that in many abusive relationships where these charges are typically filed and convicted, there is an extreme amount of manipulation that is used also through the children. The abuser will use that to their advantage as well. And repeating the cycle of violence when children are exposed to those type of situations,
70% of the time they will either grow up to become victims themselves or to become abusers. So we're talking about a dynamic here that can potentially enhance the cycle of violence if we're not careful. I also know that many victims that I have served that have, you know, after their abuser has served their sentence, have no form of applying for any type of protection because there's no existence of immediate danger,
which are what orders of protection are for. So this would help give them some sense of security because that fear is very, very strong. Before I get to the next question, let
Chair
Unverified
48:23
me just ask a question here. I, like Representative Broadway,
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
48:30
really appreciate what y'all are trying to do. But one of the things that concerns me is in the bill where it talks about prohibiting a particular person or class of persons or through third party
telephone electronic communications that we're still asking somebody to make a determination on that time of conviction to determine something years out where your friends may change family may change third party friends may change and it just seems to be a little broad. That's my
Chair
Unverified
49:01
concern with it. And with that, Representative Bain, I believe you're next. MR. Thank
Representative John Baine
Unverified
49:07
you very much. My question would be when it comes to you have two spouses get into a fight, one is
convicted of one of these charges, there's an order in place, they get divorced and then child support is ordered. So I'm trying to understand how the custodial parent and non-custodial parent can communicate with each other when it comes to child support. I'm confused by that. How can they actually talk to
Speaker 115
49:37
place? How can they communicate? I believe they can – there's a line here in the bill regarding legal communication.
Representative John Baine
Unverified
49:47
Well, but you don't always – I mean, most people involved in child support don't necessarily always contact their attorney to be the go-between on every single conversation they have. So you're going to have – and honestly, you've got a situation, I think, what Ms. Broadway – Representative Broadway brought up is you may wind up having a situation where you have two parents, one did grave harm to the other, and you've got the conviction, you've got the do not contact order, but essentially you've got two parents who are basically prohibited from life
or ever having conversations about their child, the way I
Speaker 183
50:23
interpret this. I believe it would be similar to that of provisions of orders of protection. When those are entered, the judge can order certain provisions of contact based upon the needs of that particular situation. So if there are communication needs for child support, that can be added, I'm sure, as a provision within the contact order when it is entered. Or provisions could also be entered at a later time
at the petition of the defendant or the victim themselves. All right,
Chair
Unverified
50:54
Representative Wagner, I think you were next. Okay, Representative Pogba, did
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
51:03
you have another question? Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Again, and I'm not, I guess I am hammering on this, but in effect to me this appears that it is a possible termination of parental rights for the perpetrator when they get out, and that's of concern to me.
I just, some of them under this order deserve that. I have no quibble, but there are situations where I see that this could be a barrier where it is not the desire of the child or the parent who has complied with their punishment, has gotten out, and then if the victim parent does not want that excess, it seems like that it basically bars their parental rights.
Speaker 115
51:52
That's what concerns me here. Representative Broadway, can I address that? I mean, I know you don't like for me to say it can be modified, but it can be modified. Okay, and that is, you know, just our way of them being able to have that line of communication should they desire. And this is a bill
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
52:17
for the victims. Representative Shepard, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Fite, for bringing this bill. I appreciate what you and the prosecutors are attempting to do here.
Just as a point of clarification, the question was asked about contact with regard to child support. And for that matter, visitation, I guess, would also be an area where you could potentially have some concern. And I think the statement was made that the judge could modify or the order could provide for some flexibility in that regard. But it appears to me the bill says that it shall include the following, and one of which is a prohibition against communicating with that particular person or class of persons.
So I just think that maybe the bill as drafted wouldn't allow that flexibility that it sounds like to me maybe even y'all would be essentially agreeable to adjusting in certain circumstances depending on what the evidence is, what the relationships are, and what's before the court. I certainly appreciate the fact of what the attempt is to try and head off any additional violent contact and certainly am interested in trying to protect victims and their families.
But I guess I just would look for some clarification there on that point, or am I misreading this? Thank
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
53:38
you so much. It sounds to me that there are many concerns about this bill. I believe we can take it and rework it and talk to some of you and address some of your concerns. and come back with a stronger bill. So with your permission, I would like to withdraw this bill at this time. Without objection
Chair
Unverified
53:54
from committee, allow her to pull down. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. Representative Fite, did you want to present 1450?
Yes. Representative Fite, you'll recognize to present
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
54:29
House Bill 1450. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1450 is also from the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
And what this amendment does is add two provisions to aggravated assault to a family or household member. The provisions added are identical to the language currently in the aggravated assault statute at 513-204. The two provisions that we want to add are displaying a firearm and strangulation or smothering. The reasons why the prosecutors ask to add this is that when a crime qualifies as a domestic offense
under the definition of family or household member, and the crime was displaying a firearm or strangulation or smothering. Right now, under the current law, prosecutors have to charge under regular aggravated assault. They would like to change this under the more appropriate statute of aggravated assault on a family or household member, and this amendment will allow for that. Representative Feige, my understanding of this bill is this is
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
55:37
just kind of making it in line with the other statutes.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
55:42
Is that correct? I have with me today Dan Hsu. He is the prosecuting attorney for the 12th Judicial District. And I also have with me Rebecca Riley from the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And I'm going to ask Mr. Hsu if he
Daniel Shue
Unverified
56:02
would answer that question. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Daniel Hsu. I'm prosecuting attorney for the 12th Judicial District, Sebastian County. When the legislature committed these domestic offenses back in 1979,
they mirrored exactly all the battery offenses and all the assault offenses, including aggravated assault. The legislature, in its wisdom, in 2003, I believe it was Act 1113 of 2003, included this brandishing of a firearm, taking a firearm
and displaying it in a manner likely to cause death, and added that to aggravated assault. It was not added to domestic aggravated assault. And again, following up in 2009, Act 332 of 2009, you added the provision with strangulation,
the sleeper hold, which is extremely frightening, extremely violent, and needed to be included in aggravated assault. However, it was not included in the family or household member aggravated assault. This just makes them, it's an absolute mirror. The language is exactly the same. So is that a yes? Yes. Okay.
Chair
Unverified
57:08
Any other questions from committee? I believe there
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
57:11
was somebody signed up. No. Nobody signed up to speak for or against this bill.
Chair
Unverified
57:21
Got a motion. Proper time. Representative Gazelle, what's the motion? Oh, I'm sorry. You got
Speaker 118
57:32
a question. My apologies. Go ahead. Hey, thanks for coming. Yes, sir. So
Speaker 109
57:37
what you're trying to do is mirror the existing Ag Assault statute into the and to give a domestic component to it. Is that right? That is correct. How do you foresee this is going to play out should the issue of open carry be presented
back to this committee and be approved by this legislature? Will the mere presence of a firearm lead these parties to a presumption of guilt? No, sir. You have to brandish
Daniel Shue
Unverified
58:03
it. I mean, just simply carrying a gun on your hip or a gun in a shoulder holster does not mean that
you have the ability to brandish it. Well, I understand that. But the issue on brandishing deals with is it a loaded weapon? I mean, you get into other issues about, you know, that aspect of it, but you're going to have to be brandishing the weapon.
Speaker 109
58:25
Well, I understand that. But what you're asking us to do is to do a due pass on domestic situations, which can sometimes be volatile and will have a component of whatever the respective parties said without outside corroborating witnesses. I'm concerned that you're going to present someone who is a concealed carry owner exercising their Second Amendment rights to danger of prosecution if some family member says,
Daniel Shue
Unverified
58:58
Well, I mean, that's going to test the system in general. I mean, if it's just any person, why would you not want to extend the protection that any person has to a victim of domestic violence? And as far as the
way that is presented has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. I mean, your Second Amendment rights and certain rights, you can't brandish a gun in a bank. Well, I hear what you're saying,
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
59:22
but I know the fastest way to get law
Speaker 203
59:24
enforcement to come and arrest a spouse if you're mad at them is to tell them there's a gun present.
Daniel Shue
Unverified
59:32
Friend, the only way to resolve that issue is through probable cause, through substantial evidence, and
Speaker 124
59:40
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Fair enough. No further questions. All right.
Are there any other questions from the committee? Representative Walker, got a question? Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. The term brandish may not
have been judicially defined, but it means basically to display. So if a person, following up on Representative Kiza's concern,
if a person simply has a weapon in his presence or her presence and is showing it as he or she walks around or whatever, the other person who's in the presence or any person in the presence of that person can make an accusation which would result in an unnecessary charge of a crime. So you have all kinds of prosecutorial discretion, and because you have prosecutorial discretion as prosecutors, you all can charge whenever you want to
under whatever statute you now have
and accomplish the same results. So why would you want
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:00:42
to go and add this to it? just to have the same protection that you have for victims of domestic violence as you have for anybody else. I mean, if what you're saying is true, I mean, you need to change the aggravated assault. You need to take that provision out. But reading from that statute, reading from Act 113 of 2003, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, friend, that has intent.
Our Supreme Court has said that is intent. a knowing, purposeful intent to risk somebody's life. It's not just showing a gun. Good gravy, Marie. No prosecutor worth their assault would do that. Any
Chair
Unverified
1:01:21
other questions from the committee? Representative Scott, you recognize? Yes,
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
1:01:25
thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, I did not get your name, sir. Daniel Shue. Good morning. Good morning, how are you? Can you answer this for me? So do you think that open carry would benefit the victims of such crimes against them?
Chair
Unverified
1:01:42
Representative Scott, we need to stick on. I understand where you're coming from, but I appreciate it. We need to focus on this bill. So if you've got a question on this bill, I appreciate that. No, thank
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:01:54
you. Thank you. All right, seeing no further questions from the committee, nobody signed to speak for or against, what's the pleasure of the committee? Got a motion, Representative Shepard? Motion do pass. Got a motion do pass. All those in favor
Chair
Unverified
1:02:05
say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed the bill.
Representative Whitaker, see you back there. Are you ready
Speaker 157
1:02:28
to present? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am. You
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
1:02:36
ready to present House Bill 1250? Yes, Mr. Chairman. You're recognized. Thank you. I'm back today with this bill. I've been before the committee before. Section 1 remains the same where we simply add to supplement the definition of battery in the second degree by including anyone who recklessly causes serious physical injury while intoxicated or, as you see there,
I don't have a copy before me. But there's no change from the last time I visited with you, except Section 2, which caused some concern to Mr. Walker and to Mr. Williams, particularly as it related to Act 570. We went ahead and stripped that language out on the 30-day mandatory minimum. And I'll answer any questions, but I'm also asking for a good vote. Are there any questions from the committee?
Chair
Unverified
1:03:29
Representative Cazell, you're recognized. I have a motion at the proper time. Thank you. Nobody signed up to speak for or against the committee. Seeing no further questions, Representative Cazade, what's your motion? Move, we do pass as amended. Got a motion, do pass as amended. Not amended. It's just do pass. All right, it's just do pass. Got a motion, do pass. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 157
1:03:48
All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee.
Chair
Unverified
1:04:01
Representative Vines, you're recognized. Senate Bill 307. And you've got to do
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:04:34
House Bill 1021. Confirmed. I'll do it next. Mr. Chair, Committee, I bring you today Senate Bill 307.
307 is the bill concerning funding for courts and court-related services to amend the assessment, collection, or amends of funding for the State Administration of Justice Fund and to declare emergency. We'll get into much more
detail, but the long and short of it is this. We have a severe problem in the state of Arkansas with our trial court assistants and running our circuit judgeships. These are the ladies, and I say ladies because, to my knowledge, I think every position, all judges currently are filled by ladies.
I think there have been males in the past, but currently I believe it is all ladies. We have a shortage of how we pay these folks. And this bill is a result of basically a two-year study with judges. legislators, local officials, and this is the result of that study. As you will recall, without getting into significant detail, the fund that pays these positions has resulted in severe deficiencies in collections in recent years,
basically without the funds insolvent as it currently stands. And what we've had to do, which nobody likes to do, is go back and look at our court fees and costs and try to structure a way to go forward and pay these folks because they are state employees, they deserve to be paid, and we can't keep running into surplus every six weeks and seeking cover from the governor or joint budget or legislative council. So what we've done, this bill is a result of a couple of years' study.
There are some, it's not the perfect bill, but I don't think any of us have ever sat here and presented a perfect bill. So what it does, and I'll go through briefly the sections. I hope you've taken the time to look at it. I hope you've taken the time to consult your judges and your court officials and your county and city officials back home. I'll go through the sections
kind of as an overview. Then I definitely want you to ask questions, and I've got J.D. Gingrich here from the AOC. There are some other people I believe interested in this that will want to expound on it.
But of all the things we've done to date, it doesn't sound as flamboyant or sexy or any whatever adjective it is, but this is probably one of the most important things we're going to do this section is to take care of these ladies because it's not fair as it is right now. They're kind of on standby. That's why there's an emergency clause in here. They're set to be paid, I believe, through part of March and not again. So we've got to do something. And I'd never like to bring you bills that increase or add, but this is out of necessity.
And I think you'll see from the sponsors, it's a bipartisan bill that we've got to, this is a problem, and this is why we come to Low Rock to fix problems like this. So I beg your indulgence for the next few minutes as we go over this, present this, and share with you some of the concerns in the bill. First things first, this bill does not raise the uniform court costs or fees. It doesn't raise the filing fee, does not raise the normal fees associated. What we've done is we've made some changes to close certain loopholes because there are certain parties out there that use certain parts of the judicial system to their benefit,
and that's fine. But if you're going to use those services, we need to have you pay for them, and that's what the intent of this bill is, is to address those sort of loopholes. sections one and two and I believe there are approximately it's fairly volumes bill it has 17 sections with the emergency clause and I'll give overviews and again be happy to answer any specific questions but sections one and two and thirteen deal with loopholes on new claims, filing fees
reopenings, there's a lot of discrepancy whether it's a reopen or a new case you go a certain time down the road five, ten, fifteen, however many years Can you bootstrap it back into just a reopen or is it a brand-new cause of action? These sections address that. Sections 4, 15, and 16 add a couple of traffic offenses to the law, but they assess a lower fee. Section 9 deals with payments to circuit and district courts and assesses an equal time payment on each of those, the district and the circuit court,
which these fees are both, and I may have not been clear at the beginning, these fees will be applicable in both circuit and district courts and various causes of action. Sections 3, 11, and 12 clarify the assessment and collection of court costs and how they're given priority over the fines. So we're going to kind of reassess the priority here to make sure we get these court costs collected so we can get these funds collected to pay these folks. section six section 10 deals with section 10 is is maybe the the one of the media's provisions
previously when a conviction was expunged there was no fee associated with with that collection what we've done now is if you're going to come back after you've served your sentence finished your conviction we're going to add and you come back to the court previously there's been no fee associated with that well we think it's time that you know if you're going to if you're going to get that right and get those rights back, you pay for them. So we've assessed a $50 fee for people seeking to expunge their record. Using numbers from, I believe, 2011, and maybe the last collection period, and JD can clarify
that for me, we applied that $50 fee to the number of expungements, and it would have raised between $350,000 and $400,000 based on that. And these funds on these expungements, half will be paid to the AOJ fund, and then one half will be given back to the cities and county general funds. So the cities and counties also have a cut of the pie, so to speak, because they're playing an important role. What we've attempted to do here is not put any of these fees on the back of the average common, everyday Arkansan.
We've put these fees on the people that actually use the court system. It is, you know, if you do right and never have a occurrence to feel the necessity for our criminal system, either district or circuit court, this will have no effect on you whatsoever. But if you are a participant in the system, we expect you to contribute and help make financial, you know, do your financial obligation in making sure the court can function sufficiently.
So with that, I'll be more than happy to answer any questions. I'll be happy to bring Mr. Gingrich forward if you have any questions for the AOC. And we can go from there because, again, I think there's some people with some interest potentially want to speak for or against this. Questions from committee? Mr.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:11:36
Walker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Walker. It looks like we've got somebody, it looks like Mark Hayes signed up to speak against the bill. Mr. Hayes, are you – there you are.
You're recognized, Mr. Hayes. Just remind everybody who you are,
Mark Hayes
Unverified
1:11:55
please. Yes, sir. My name is Mark Hayes. I'm the general counsel with the Municipal League. I want to tell you all a couple of things first. And the first thing I want to do is thank the chairman and Representative Steele, who may not be in the room right now, and Representative Vines, who spent a lot of time – oh, there he is – a lot of time speaking with me over the last – several days about our concerns with the bill. I want to make sure that I'm clear on a couple of
fronts. There's no doubt there's a problem with the trial court assistance. I also know that most of you, if not every single one of you, have heard from your circuit court judges and from your trial court assistants. I have several very good friends that are circuit court judges who I've had lengthy conversations with and a couple of trial court assistants, including one that I went to high school with that I didn't even know about in Jonesboro, who called me yesterday and and we had a chat about it as well. When I've explained what our concerns are, every single one of them have said, okay, now I kind of see where you're coming from,
and hopefully we'll be able to get something worked out. That didn't work out, so that's why I'm sitting here at the end of the table telling you a few things. I also want you to understand something about the perspective that I bring to this issue. I don't know that I'm the only person in the state who has done all these things, but if I'm not, I'm one of the few. I have served as a district court judge. I've been a prosecutor in district court. I've been a criminal defense lawyer in district court. I have represented district court judges. I sat on the original district court retirement system.
And I represent currently about 40 district court clerks who are being sued in a class action case. Many of you lawyers around the state who work with city government are aware of that. So I bring that in, and I have four kids, so I've spent plenty of time with teenagers in traffic court as well. and, frankly, probably have had a speeding ticket
or two myself. So I'm intimately familiar with the system. The point of all that is I don't say any of this lightly. I'm not poking a hole in this for purposes of being difficult
or not getting something done for the people who need it, and clearly the trial court assistants do. I can tell you some things that I've been told as I understand it, and it's a little hard to estimate some of the things, some of the changes in the bill. In fact, it would be impossible to estimate a couple of them. But the things that can be estimated raises roughly $9 million. I don't know what the deficit is to take care of the trial court assistance right now, but I assume it's something shy of that. So that tells me that it's a broader-based fix.
Perhaps that's necessary. Perhaps it's not. The important part of that from municipal government's perspective is they're the ones who fund the courts for the most part, and they're the ones who are supplying the supplies and the people to collect those monies. The money generated that we're talking about, some of it certainly goes on in circuit court, but the primary cash flow is done from district courts. That's where the volume is. And it is a court of the people, and frankly, almost everybody in this room at one point or another
has probably had a traffic ticket, so it really does affect each and every one of us. So let me get to a couple of specific provisions in the bill that I'd like to just raise attention to. And in particular, there is a new cost of $25 that's attached to seatbelt charges and no insurance charges, and that's in Section 4, which is on page 3 of the bill. I can't tell, and perhaps Mr. Gingrich or Keith, I think, is here as well.
Well, my understanding is that that $25 would not go into the normal AOJ fund, but rather would be funneled straight upstream to the state AOJ fund. Remember that court costs have a limited portion that goes to cities, a limited portion that goes to counties, and the majority of it goes to the state to fund the state administration of justice fund. So any time I say court costs versus fines, that's the distinction. Fines are kept at the local government. But the problem that's occurring, as you can see from the audit report that many of you are familiar with,
besides the rather significant one-time takings that has gone on from the Administration of Justice Fund, collections are a problem. Clearly, the economy has played a role in that. But the more times you add in fees and add in court costs, the harder it becomes to collect the fine money. The fine money, of course, is what drives the economic side of the municipal part of the equation. So I don't know if that $25 goes into the normal pot, but most of that would go straight upstream.
If it's not all of it, most of it would. There's also a provision in the law right now that says that the court costs that were fixed in 1995, and just as a matter of history, the 1995, a uniform court cost bill, that was supposed to fix all, cure all of these issues was put in where $50 and I think it was $50 across the board. Keith can tell us the history for sure, but it was $50 on traffic citations. Well, within one or two sessions of that, it immediately went to $75.
So now if you're the presiding judge in that court, you've taken $25 more out of the fine equation and pushed it into the court cost equation. So you can see the compression has begun already, and that's occurred time and time again with minor tweaks and prioritizations and those kinds of things. So there's a COLA provision that this bill would not – it doesn't repeal it, but it alters it rather substantially. And it says that cities and counties would keep the lesser of the COLA on the 1995 number
that they're keeping out of the Administration of Justice Fund or the percentage increase in collections over, I think it's the last, the previous two years. I may have that wrong, but I think it's over either one or two years. Is it two years or one? I don't remember. In any event, it's the lesser of those two things. Clearly, collections have already been identified as a problem. So I think we can assume, at least for the short term, that the COLA goes out the window.
And then the last thing that I would draw your attention to, and I think perhaps the most substantial, is there is an additional, the bill adds an additional $5 into the what's called time pay for a defendant in district court. And that does, in fact, bring it to the same amount that's in circuit court. Right now, circuit court, it's $10 for the privilege of paying your fine out over time. In circuit court, $7.50 of that stays with the county, and the language is very specific.
In fact, you can look at it in the bill. I think it's in Section 9. And in the county, it says that additional $5 that was added in to make it a total of $10 for $7.50 total for the county is specifically to offset the cost of collection, recognizing that county employees are doing that function. This bill adds an additional $5 in to make it for a grand total of $10, but $750 goes straight up to the state out of that $10.
So none of the new $5 stays locally to help offset the cost of collecting over time. And I think that's probably the major rub that we have with it. Representative Vines pointed out the expungement provision. It certainly will add some revenue in that we haven't seen before. But the estimates that I've seen from Mr. Kavanis at the AOC is that the additional $5, they're hoping will be $5 million plus. So it's a pretty big discrepancy between that and the expungement.
And I guess the point of all that is you still have municipal costs or county costs in some instances that are being born to collect this additional money, but there really aren't any provisions to help us with that financially. And that's the concern with the bill. Again, I recognize the dire nature of the problem. The bill would seem to correct it in a whole lot more, hopefully. I would hope it would. But we have gone down this road before, and it continues to make it difficult on municipal budgets.
All of you, particularly the practicing lawyers in the room, but all of you, I'm sure know something about your local court system. And I don't think anybody in this room would say that people aren't trying to collect money, that they have an abundance of money. Every now and then something crops up that's a little odd. I heard Representative Nichols had a concern over the city of Sherwood today that they do actually have some money that seems to be a little bit out of the norm. But in the norm, district courts, they're certainly not rich, and they're not wasting money.
And it's a tough economic equation for them. That's the concern with the bill. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Representative Scott,
Chair
Unverified
1:21:16
you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
1:21:19
you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Johnson, my question is for you. Oh, Vines. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm John Vines, District 25, High Springs. Thank you very much. And I haven't forgotten my question.
My question also comes with a comment. I'm from Benton County, and I know firsthand the problems that this has caused the dear ladies and men who work in this profession. And my question is to you, how do you think the employees, the dear, wonderful people we have working here at the Capitol, how do you think they would feel on Friday afternoon or Monday or whenever their checks are delivered that they were told,
hey, we don't have enough money to pay you this month. And I'd like for you to speak to the real human part of this
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:22:18
bill, if you would, please. Absolutely. And I totally kid you, Representative
Scott. You're a friend, and I appreciate your concern here, so I was just in good nature introducing myself to you. I know. What you touched on is the heart of this bill.
For the last two, two-and-a-half years, as long as I've been fortunate enough to be a part of this General Assembly,
we've had this issue. And every time it's disheartening. I'm one of the ones that does work in this system. I do sometimes try to practice a little law whenever I can find somebody to pay the bill. But for these ladies, and it has been me, and I keep going back to ladies, and I don't want it to sound like this is any sort of issue there. But as of right now, we've done this about four, five, six times in the last couple of years where they've been told, you know, if we don't do something, you're not going to get paid next month or we're going to pay you.
This happened just previously right up before Christmas. I mean, we had a stopgap measure right after the election. We came up here, and we had some stopgaps, and we got some one-time money. And every time we go get that, the fix to these problems is not one-time money. We can't keep relying on one-time money. There are a lot of problems, and we can definitely get under the hood of district and circuit courts and extrapolate on those. This bill is in no way a defense of the decrease in collections and what's wrong
and how things have not been collected. This bill is brought to fix just that and not make these ladies. Right now, we're in the same situation where we're at before Christmas. They're good to be paid through this month, maybe a little bit into March, but there's nothing beyond there. So if we do nothing, we basically created a tier of state employees that's second-class citizens. We basically said, we're going to pay everybody in Little Rock. We're going to pay everybody in these other state offices. We're going to pay you circuit judges. But sorry, ladies, we just don't have the funds to pay you.
So that's the necessity of this bill. You know, addressing some of these issues, I'll be quick. And J.D. can go further because what we've tried to do, yes, there may not be any percentages of the new fee that we've done in district and state court that's in the bill. I may have glossed over that. I apologize, but if you installment pay or you can't pay your fines like everyone else and you go up there ten times to pay a $100 fine, a $1,000 fine, what it is, we expect you to pay a charge, so to speak.
Now, is that a new charge? Yes. But is it new work? No. That file's been there. It's always been there. It's just now there's going to be a fee assessed to that. I do that on my insurance. I'm sure the rest of you, and this may be a poor example, But if I can't pay my insurance bill whenever it comes due and I have to pay it in installments, guess what? Insurance company hits me with, you know, a percentage of fee, $5, $10 handling charge, whatever. Yes, we did not. There is no new monies for the district courts out of those funds. But we've made provisions throughout here to get in and give them monies off the expungements.
And, oh, by the way, we've got a whole issue out there with the district courts and everything going. and we don't want to plow that field at all because I see Representative Steele down there smiling. But we've got a whole other set of issues there, and we could spend weeks, months, and years dealing with those. This bill is a concise, to-the-point address of making sure we take care of some state employees that we just have not taken care of today. And that's the epitome of the bill. There are no hidden agendas.
There are no hidden fees. It's all spelled out in there. It's not perfect. I'll give you that, but we're trying to make it as fair as possible because here's the other thing. This problem's been there for two years, two years. We've tried to get it in front of everybody, and this is, to my knowledge, the only thing that's really out there to fix it. If there's a better version, a better brand, a better alternative, I'm all for it, but I think one of the most important things we do is take care of these folks because if we're not going to take care of our folks in Arkansans, we don't need to be here.
Chair
Unverified
1:26:28
Representative Scott, I just want to make sure we don't forget about those good circuit judges up there. Representative Steele, you're recognized for
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to, I think this all happened kind of fast. There are a lot of members on the committee that haven't been in on all these meetings. And I'm going to vote for this bill, but I think, Mr. Hayes, I think you've got a legitimate concern here. I tend to agree with you, but as Representative Vine said, this is a critical thing. We've got to pay trial court assistance, and I'd rather have a bill that does it than a perfect bill. What I want you to do, if you could, and you kind of went through a lot of information, I think, for the committee,
but your basic concern is you think that this funding mechanism is going to squeeze the cities a little bit in order to send money to
the state. Is that a fair analysis? I think that's a fair analysis. Representative Vines is right. We're currently collecting right now, but the workload, and I guess in one sense, stays the same. I don't want to be disingenuous about it, but the problem is every time you in any way reprioritize and make sure that court costs are taken first, because they do fund,
and you can look at the list, 24, 25 different things in state government, every time that gets done, it makes it harder to collect the fine money. So whether it's still on the books as it was before or not, it just makes it more difficult and that's been time and time again has been proven and obviously there's a huge collection problem right now and I think those of you who actually practice in district court and have have worn or wear a city attorney hat know that there are thousands
if not hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting on the books that just can't be collected you put five dollars on it ten dollars on it fifty dollars on it a month you're not going to get the money, but you still have people working for the court, getting paid, trying to do that. And so that's really, it is an offset for us. It would help us at least try to level that playing field a little bit. We've got places laying folks off or in debates with judges about the number of folks they need, and
Mark Hayes
Unverified
1:28:39
some of you I know are familiar with that because you're right in the middle
of it. So this this decrease in revenue in general, it's affecting the cities as well as the administration of justice fund.
Yes, sir. Absolutely. We we relied on that fine money to run that court system, if not more than that. And it's just not
Speaker 232
1:28:58
you know, that's just not there anymore. Going forward, if I might, one more question. Let's finish
it up after this last one. Going forward, you anticipate some some other bills that might help address this this problem and similar problems? I hope we'll be able to address some of it.
Yes, sir. And you're willing to work with the committee and hopefully help get the city a seat at the table during
those discussions? I would hope I could do that in any way, shape, or form that the committee would want me to.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:29:26
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, is there anybody else? I see J.D. Greenwich
Chair
Unverified
1:29:33
was in the room to testify full. I don't know that it's all right. It looks like no other speaking for or against. What's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Biles, I'm sorry. Do you want to close your bill?
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:29:43
No, I'm very appreciative and appreciate the attention given to the matter.
Chair
Unverified
1:29:46
I've got a motion by Representative Walker. I do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, Pastor Bill. Is there anybody else on the committee or anybody else? Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. In the audience that wants to present a bill? Vice Chair Biles, can you take this real quick?
Speaker 222
1:30:32
Representative Wright, welcome to the House of Judiciary. You're a representative to present
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:30:37
your bill. Thank you, Representative Vibes. I'm here back with House Bill 1021 asking to concur in the Senate amendment. Just real briefly, this is the bill that I brought before y'all, and you flew it out of here. It's regarding the transportation of inmates and saying that if there's a crime committed, the sheriffs pay for it. If they're in state custody, the state pays for it. Then it got to the House floor. I don't recall it getting a single no vote. The only thing this is, when we sent it down to the Senate, we made an amendment.
I agreed with the amendment, just so you'll know, that just changed and said that the Department of Human Services wouldn't be responsible for paying, but the state would pay that, and it was all an agreed-to thing with all the parties involved, and so it just has to come back down here. We just have to concur. I'd ask for a good vote and ask if
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:31:25
we concurred and send an amendment. All right, Representative Wright has presented his amendment. Is there any questions from the committee? I believe, Representative McElroy, you've got a motion? Do pass. All right, there's a motion. Do pass and to actually do pass and I actually concur in Senate Amendment on House Bill 1021.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Same sign. Congratulations, Representative Wright. You have concurred in Senate Amendment. Is there any further activity or action needed to transpire today? Hearing none, the committee will be adjourned until next week. Thank you.
Agenda
HB1354
HB1417
HB1448
HB1450
HB1250
SB307
HB1021
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 2
Speaker 4
Representative Jim Nickels Chair
Unverified
Speaker 6
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker Chair
Unverified
Speaker 28
Speaker 33
Speaker 36
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel Chair
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 69
Speaker 72
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
Speaker 54
Speaker 96
Speaker 98
Speaker 109
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
Speaker 115
Speaker 43
Speaker 118
Speaker 113
Speaker 129
Speaker 135
Speaker 142
Speaker 158
Speaker 160
Representative Wes Wagner Chair
Unverified
Speaker 166
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
Speaker 183
Representative John Baine
Unverified
Speaker 186
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 202
Speaker 203
Speaker 124
Speaker 157
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
Mark Hayes
Unverified
Speaker 232
Speaker 222