House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (16)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1250
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1250”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1138
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1138”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB12
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…n amendment represent Broadway you're recognized to present house bill 12 with the amendment to house”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1265
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1265”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1271
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1271”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1309
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1309”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1324
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1324”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1325
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1325”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1326
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1326”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1350
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1350”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1355
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1355”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1358
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1358”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1359
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1359”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1361
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1361”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1362
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1362”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB170
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB170”
|
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
From the House later today, I think that would give everybody a chance to cover the things they want to do, yet still enable us to get our business done. So if that's all right with y'all, that's
what we're going to do. All right, first bill on the agenda is House Bill 1250, Representative Whitaker. You're recognized. Present your
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
0:26
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. After long last, I am indeed here to run House Bill 1250.
By way of explanation, the delay was caused by a couple of members on amendments I did at the behest of Prosecutor Coordinator's Office and some of the other staff attorneys in government employ. We believe the result is a very solid bill that I have to give credit where credit is due is the brainchild of
Fayetteville City Prosecutor Casey Jones, who could not be with us today. The bill,
very short and to the point, fills a gap in our current criminal
code when it comes to driving while intoxicated and the consequences for a conviction thereof. We have at one end what we refer to in the trade as the simple DWI, where a person is found to have been driving while intoxicated. And then at the other extreme, if the facts warranted, a person can be charged up to and including homicide. What we didn't have down lower on the punishment scale was any sort of provision for what happens
if, while driving intoxicated, a person recklessly causes serious physical harm to another. The truth was we couldn't meet the burden of battery. Most prosecutors couldn't meet the burden of battery one, obviously not homicide. So by default, they fell back down to simple DWI. This provides prosecutors and judges another tool in their arsenal against the evils of drunken driving. It simply says if your fact situation leads to the, could lead to the conclusion that
the person recklessly caused serious physical injury to another while driving intoxicated, they could be charged with a Class D felony, zero to six years incarceration. The second part of it that you'll see at the very end on page three is a 30-day minimum. To make it clear that if a person convicted under this part of the statute, They will at least see 30 days inside someone's jail that the idea behind it is there is a greater degree of culpability here than simple DWI.
And yet, obviously, we don't want to, in every case, send someone to prison for six years. The flexibility is in the hands of the prosecutor, judge, and jury. I will be asking
for a due pass. Thank you. All right, Representative Gazette, you had some questions? You recognize?
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
3:23
Okay, my apologies. Representative Steele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Whitaker. I think we all know that usually DWIs, the level of intoxication we're talking about is .08, which
is legal intoxication. If you cause an accident, my understanding is that it drops to .025. So DWI, driving while intoxicated, if you cause an accident, it's .025, which is very low, I think most of us would admit. So my concern here is we could be – and let's assume that if you cause an accident, there probably would be some kind of battery there. Somebody could be injured as a result of that accident. So if someone were only under the influence of .025, which might be one beer,
and they were to have an accident here, they would be a convicted felon under this – I mean, there would be a
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
4:14
felony under this statute, would it not?
Representative Steele, by its own terms, this particular definition, Battery 2, DWI, holds to the 0.8. Okay. So
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
4:25
that moving standard, when you cause an accident, would not move under this law? Not under this statute. Okay. That's
Speaker 19
4:31
right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Any questions from the committee? Representative Walker, you're
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In
mandating a 30-day sentence, are you not, in effect, imposing an absolute requirement upon the sentencing court and therefore invading the province
of the judge? Well, I don't see it
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
5:09
that way, and certainly I don't think setting any sort of legislative
precedent if we did. Well, I guess the
question that I have, if I may follow up, Mr. Ryan. While the court may or shall order a minimum of 30 days, does this not allow or does this affect the discretion of the court to afford the accused credit for good time or some modification which would actually result in less than 30 days inside a jailhouse?
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
5:47
My reading of it and from the staff attorneys we've worked with is that it would not allow departure from that 30-day minimum.
So the court would have no discretion? Not in those 30 days, but with the other zero
to six years, they certainly would. Do you think that's clear in this statute, or is it perhaps subject
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
6:11
to a vagueness argument? The earlier language, I felt, justifiably had been criticized for a possibility of vagueness or ambiguity.
The new language satisfied me. We're certainly all ears if you feel that there's taking into account your experience in the law. If you feel that there's a way that this could be more clearly explained, we'd love to be able to work with you on that. But that section has been amended at least once by helpful input from staff attorneys. Thank you. Representative Williams, you're recognized.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
6:51
Representative Whitaker, let me first say thank you for your legislation and then let me go into my typical protection of Act 570 which we just passed last session. We continue to enhance penalties and enhance penalties and I know in a term-limited environment where ten of you guys weren't here last year, but if we continue to do that, then we should have not done what we did last year. There's got to be a cost-benefit analysis to what we're doing. 30 days in jail. It costs $23,000 per person in prison. Divide that by 30. That's how much we're spending. Do you think the benefit of
30 days imprisonment, taking away judges' discretion, spending more taxpayer dollars, probably being back where we need to spend an additional $1.1 billion over the next 10 years, is a sufficient justification for enhancing this penalty? And does that enhancement provide any deterrent for someone or any benefit other than more tax dollars spent toward
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
7:45
incarceration wow let me say this it may indeed increase some costs but I do not believe that it's the beginning or even the beginning of the beginning of the
end of Act 570 this is not just a an attempt to pile on someone who is not not otherwise culpable. This is a situation where you have a person under the new statute who would have recklessly caused serious physical injury to another. Obviously a judgment call. That's why we're here. I believe it's justified. If you don't, I certainly respect your opinion.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
8:32
Can I follow up? I'm not arguing that it may not be justified, but I'm
arguing that we've We've got to have some evidence-based principles to determine how we sentence people. If not, we're going to be in a situation where we just continue to spend more and more money in building jails. Currently, if this occurred, help me,
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
8:52
what would be the current offense? What are we going from and to? Currently, the only thing that our prosecutors have in many fact situations that this would apply to is simple DWI. And that would be the case whether a person's
Speaker 44
9:07
legs were broken or whether they were rendered paraplegic for the remainder of their lives.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
9:13
And I'm sorry I'm trying to get your physical impact up. Tell me what does, of course, this bill requires physical impact because it has an impact on the Department of Corrections. What does your physical impact say with regard to impact on the Department of Corrections? As
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
9:27
I recall, I don't remember that they came up with a specific dollar value. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
9:37
Chair. No questions right now, at least until I finish
reading this. Representative Whitaker, you mentioned something a while ago. You mentioned something about a judgment call.
Aren't we, with your bill, taking the judgment call away from the judges and mandating
what they do when they might see a better punishment to fit the crime and taking it
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
10:00
out of their hands? That's my concern. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand. And as far as this, nothing about this bill will take away a broad range of sentencing discretion. It's simply as the 30-day incarceration, because the feeling among the attorneys and the prosecutors I spoke with was if you maim someone for life, you probably ought to spend a couple of days of your life in a jailhouse instead of planting petunias for the city.
Well, I'm not talking about planting petunias for the city, but there are a lot of people out there that 30 days in jail to them might mean absolutely nothing. And if it means absolutely nothing to them, we've accomplished nothing. And they might be better served. It might be a better crime for them, for the judge, to impose a different penalty. I mean, I see in court all the time somebody 10 days in jail, no problem. And we're taking this away from the courts. That's what we're doing, not planting petunias, but taking away the alternatives to make sure a judge and a prosecutor and all have that discretion.
And we're not doing it with that. That's where I'm coming from. Thank you. Representative
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
11:10
Gillum, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kind of to piggyback off of what the chairman
just asked, and I'm trying to get, I guess, maybe back to the original intent of the bill. But what other crime could they be sentenced with that they couldn't already – I mean, going back to – if I believe I understood you correctly earlier, I'm sorry if I'm not articulating this correctly, but I thought the point of the bill was to allow prosecutors the ability to charge them with something that right now they couldn't charge them with.
I thought that there was a gap that people were falling through. So to piggyback off the chairman's question, what other – if they couldn't fit – if they're already in this gap, what else could be done? I mean,
Speaker 57
12:00
if – I'm not getting that correctly, but if
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
12:04
– Well, the gap is that under the current state of the law, there's a large set of fact situations that come before the court where all the prosecutor could charge with was simple DWI,
regardless of the extent of injuries to anybody that may have occurred. This would give prosecutors another tool in those fact situations where, and I don't want to get too deep in the weeds for the non-lawyers, but consistent with the model penal code's idea of differing levels of intent with differing levels of culpability, Actually, this introduces another provision of battery two that only requires a prosecutor to prove recklessness,
which is a lower evidentiary burden than currently would be required for, say, if they were going to charge battery one, which is a higher standard. Right now, if all you can prove is that somebody recklessly caused serious physical harm, there is nothing to charge them with other than simple DWI. Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, may I
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
13:11
ask a follow-up? Could they also just be charged with reckless driving? I guess that's really what I was trying to go with, is what are the other just normal provisions?
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
13:22
Well, you know, and a lot of that's going to be fact-based on each one, so there are probably other things depending on the facts of each, you know, instance that, and certainly that's about within the discretion of the prosecutor to determine what that would be. Okay. All right. Thank you. Representative Williams, you're
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
13:40
recognized. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Representative Whitaker, you say all you can charge someone with a simple DWI. Is it not correct that simple DWI carries with it the possibility for a judge to sentence someone to jail for one year?
A Class A misdemeanor can be sentenced up to one year in jail. Isn't that correct? That is correct. So the judge has the authority to do what you're trying to do right now. Is that not correct? The judge has the authority to. Okay. And civilly, you have an opportunity to charge someone. Civilly, you can be liable for three times or treble damages right now civilly for Class A misdemeanors. Is that not correct? That's my understanding. So I'm trying to figure out what we're doing in this bill other than requiring 30 days in jail, taking away discretion from the judge. The judge could require 60 days in jail, 90 days in jail, 120 days in jail, 360 days in jail if they'd like to.
So what's the purpose of this statute other than to make the state pay those $30,
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
14:35
30 days in jail? Well, let me say this about that. The 30-day requirement was not in my original draft. The 30-day requirement came along because prosecutors asked for it. I am not wedded to it. I would certainly be happy, and I can't sit here and tell you that I was ever a huge fan of the concept, But it was stressed over and over that there was incredible frustration out in the working
prosecutor world that, regardless of facts, judges were often giving community service rather than actual incarceration. I personally am quite invested in the first section changes of creating the Battery 2. And I would have no difficulty striking the 30-day minimum requirement in order to get the other thing done
because I believe it's essential to provide our prosecutors with these tools. I guess
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
15:43
my follow-up is that you can't answer my question. The judge who's close to the
case, who hears the case, who sits in front of the participants, not us, decides that this defendant should be sentenced to community service. I hate to take away the judge's discretion in that regard to someone who doesn't hear the facts,
don't see the circumstances, and so I would just have to vote against this, obviously because of my patch for Act 570, but also because we're taking away the judge's discretion, and in effect, you can do what you're trying to do right now with regard to the sentence enhancement already. Thank you. Any
other questions from the committee? All right, look, we've got some people in the audience signed up to speak for or against this. It looks like we've got Pamela Ware first. Ms. Ware, if you'll just
Pamela Ware
Unverified
16:33
go down to the end of the table and tell everybody who you are,
Speaker 72
16:37
you're recognized. Pamela Ware- My name is Pamela Ware. I'm the mother of Trevor Ware.
Speaker 73
16:52
He's my son. On September 4th, he was riding on I-40 on his motorcycle when he was hit from behind by a repeat offender drunk driver. He was severely injured, punctured bowel, severe trauma to his head. He suffers a traumatic brain injury. I'm in support of this change.
I believe prosecutors need more tools. These cases are commonly plea bargained down to very little time and sometimes none. I feel that for the prosecutors, they need more tools to represent these victims. My son, his care for 30 days far exceeds the $23,000 that it would take to incarcerate someone who is guilty of drunk driving. And in this case, we're talking about someone that has caused an injury to someone.
And I just feel that the victims, the future victims, need to be protected better than my son has been. So I do support this. Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Thank you,
Ms. Weyer. Erin Blome. Ms. Blome, if you'll just tell everybody
Pamela Ware
Unverified
18:04
who you are. You're recognized. Hi, my name is Erin
Erin Blome
Unverified
18:08
Blome, and I'm a victim service specialist with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. You hit your speaker button.
Oh, okay. My name is Erin Blome, and I work with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I'm a victim service specialist, and I would just urge you guys to support this bill. I see many families. Not everyone dies from a drunk driving crash. So many people are injured, and their medical bills, like Pam said, far exceed the amount. And a lot of times the state is already paying for those medical bills. So I would just urge you guys to support this because I think 30 days in jail, you know,
definitely, you know, would make someone think twice about it. That's not a guarantee in every case, but we see a lot of offenders who come through who take the Mothers Against Drunk Driving class, and they often speak about jail time and how it may be impactful. So, thank you. Any questions for committee? Ms. Blome, thank
you very much. Looks like we've got John Snyder, PCO.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're done? Okay, thank you, Mr. Snyder.
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
19:29
Representative Whitaker, you want to close your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is very important, and I certainly understand the concerns that Representative Williams and Representative Walker brought up on the second section. If that section posed the risk that the changes in the first section could not become law, I would pull this down now and work with the Committee on any changes
you see fit. But I just in my heart of hearts know this first part must pass. I would second that motion. Are you
telling the committee you want to just pull the bill down and work on
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
20:16
it? And work with this committee on making it an even better bill. But I'm absolutely dedicated that the first part must become law. Okay. All
right. You can pull it down and work on the amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Representative
Whitaker. Thank you. representative Broadway do you want to run 1265 are you ready yes sir I am okay
remember you have an amendment represent Broadway you're recognized to present house bill 12 with the amendment to house
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
20:56
bill 1265 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This bill is basically creating a form, and when one creates a form… Let me answer the amendment first, if you don't mind. That's what I was saying. Okay. Thank you. When one creates a form, one must be assured that the form
is somewhat correct, so the amendment basically corrects and tightens a little bit of language that was raised to
Speaker 12
21:18
my attention. Do I have a motion on the amendment? Representative Slinker, you have
a motion to do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed. All right, the ayes have
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
21:34
it. You're recognized to present your bill
as amended. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Basically, members, what this bill does is create a notice form for
an affidavit of collection of small estates. As some of you all may know that practice in the area of probate,
a small estate does not have to go through the entirety of the formal probate process. And therefore, one files an affidavit for collection of small estates. When there is no real property involved, then there is no necessity to publish anything in the newspaper. However, when real property is involved, then it is essential that notice be published to give notice to all potential individuals who may claim an interest in the real property, an opportunity to come forward.
And actually, we found that there was no such form. There is a form for the affidavit, but there is no form for what should be contained in the newspaper notice. So what this bill has done is it's followed the statutory requirements of what should be in your notice and actually just puts it in form for a practitioner. And that's the essence of what this bill does. Representative Steele, you recognize for a question? Thank
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
22:52
you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Broadway, one of the concerns we had last session on some of the new forms were that we created some forms that went in the statute and then we required that that particular form be used.
and lawyers who have been practicing law around the state for 30 or 40 years, like my dad and others, got frustrated because this is the way I've done it all my life and now you all say I have to use this form. I think you had something in here about it must substantially comply with this form. Is that correct? Or is this form going to be used to the exclusion of maybe forms that lawyers have in their computers all over the state?
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
23:30
I would not think so. The intention is
to provide a form for those that do not have a form.
But certainly if there is a form in existence that your father has used that is compliant with the law, then there's nothing that I see in this bill that would exclude that. Basically, we felt that there was a need. My husband has a very extensive probate practice, and weekly someone calls him and asks him for his form of notice. And so this is just basically to try to provide a little service to those that do not have a form and are not comfortable with what they may try to create on their own. Okay.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
24:07
One more, if I might, Mr. Chairman. Yep. This doesn't deal with any forms as far as filings of probate. Just notice. Is that correct? This is only the
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
24:12
newspaper notice. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that,
I would ask for a good vote. Any questions? Any other questions from the committee? You close for your bill? Yes, sir. Representative Slinkard, do you have a motion? Motion to pass. Got a motion to do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Unknown speaker
24:41
Do pass as amended is what that was. Representative Wilkins.
Speaker 101
25:14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have Dr. Robert
Brick here with me. Yeah. Representative Wilkins, you're presenting House Bill
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
25:23
1355. Is that correct? That's correct. This is a, Mr. Chairman, managers, committee members, I mean, this is a regulation that will
align Arkansas regulation with federal law. There was a mistake made in Act 1011
of last session, I believe, that passed. And this bill will simply, on the lead-based paint, will simply bring us in compliance with federal law.
Thank you. Any questions from committee?
Speaker 113
26:37
Give us just a second, Representative Wilkins. Thank you.
Speaker 115
26:47
All right. Has everybody been able to pull up the bill? I can
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
27:09
just tell you all about it if you want me.
Just give us just another second, Representative Wilkins, and we're going to let everybody just have the time to make sure there aren't any questions. And
I just, y'all, I want a technical deal here. I want to remind everybody that when you're pulling up bills, if you'll close the one you have open before
you try to open another one, That seems to make a difference.
All right, Representative Wilkins, are there any questions from committee? Any questions from our committee? There's been nobody signed up for or against. Representative Wilkins, you want to close your bill? I'm closed, Mr. Chairman. All
right, what's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Walker has a due pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, Representative Wilkins. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Representative Talley.
Representative Talley, you are recognized to present House Bill 1358. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Brent Talley
Unverified
28:42
Chairman. House Bill 1358 is an act concerning the fees collected by the state crime lab to clarify and update the disposition of certain fees collected by the state crime lab and for other purposes.
Chair
Unverified
29:01
Any questions there might be? Are there any questions from the committee? Representative
Walker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Talley, what kind of money are we talking about as being the subject of this act, this proposed bill? MR. I've got the director of Arkansas Crime Lab
Representative Brent Talley
Unverified
29:19
here with me, and I'll let him address those issues. MR. You'll just let us know who you are.
Speaker 130
29:27
You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Kermit Channel. I'm the director
Chair
Unverified
29:31
of the Crime Laboratory. Basically what this bill does, it doesn't incur any new fees.
These are already fees that we currently get. We just wanted to clarify exactly the areas where we get those fees so there's no increase. Well, the question is, what is the
amount of fees that you all get, and what do you do with them now?
Chair
Unverified
29:50
We get approximately $40,000 a year that go into our general revenue fund. And what do you do with them now? We use those fees anywhere from education for analysts to any kind of training that occurs in the laboratory.
Why is there a need to have an act changing the discretion that you already
have and the apparent good purpose to which you have put this modest amount
Speaker 130
30:17
of fees? Well, basically with this, it really makes it more transparent to the fees that
Chair
Unverified
30:22
we're getting in and allows our fiscal officer to appropriate these fees to expenditure more appropriately.
Well, aren't they subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the transparency is there very readily and easily
to anyone who would want to be concerned about a $5 fee or a $70 fee or $90 expenditure? I mean, my question is, why do we have to put everything, however small, into some form of legislation? Yes, sir, and
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
30:50
I have my fiscal officer that can probably answer that more appropriately. Yes, sir. Good morning.
Speaker 141
31:07
John Smith. What this would allow us to do is deposit this money as a refund to expenditure. Then I can get the appropriation back and use it to better serve the needs of our agency. Right now, I deposited it as miscellaneous income, and I can't do anything with it but use it for
current appropriations. Well, why is it necessary to change that? I mean, do you have some
use, something that would benefit the agency that you have been denied over the years from being able to accomplish by not having the discretion to use the money
as you have seen fit thus far? We use this money
Speaker 141
31:48
to get appropriation back to pay the fees of our medical examiners to pay their licensing fees and to pay their insurance. This just allows me to get about $30,000 more in appropriation, $30,000 to $40,000, whatever we deposit. In other words, you're going to
get $30,000 more from the legislature in appropriations? No, it would be, it would
Speaker 141
32:08
come through DFA accounting. So, in other words, some of this.
It would let me deposit this money to offset expenses that we've
already incurred. But I'm trying to understand. You collect fees from some source, right? Yes. And those fees are not collected from other state agencies, are they? They are not. They're collected from
Speaker 141
32:33
private persons. With exception to about $18,000 of that is from the health department for sudden infant death syndrome autopsies. But I'm still trying to
understand why it's necessary for a piece of legislation to come into play
when there's never been any real problem over the last hundred years with the way it's been done prior to your administration. We did it this way
Speaker 141
32:56
until my legislative audit of 2011. And they suggested that I come back and add these two items to this legislation. So it's really not necessary, but
it's something that you just want to help. It would just help us, yes, sir. I see. Representative Gilliam,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
33:15
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the Vice Chair of Legislative Audit just answered the question that I was going to,
or he asked it and got it answered the one I was going to ask. So with that, I'll just have a motion at the proper
time, Mr. Chair. All right. Any other questions from the committee? Nobody signed up to speak. Got a motion. Are you going to close your bill,
Representative Calley? Representative Gilliam, what's the motion? Do pass. Got a motion, do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Looks like
the ayes have it. Congratulations. You've passed House Bill 1358. Representative Talley, you recognize to present House Bill 1359. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Brent Talley
Unverified
33:55
Thank you, Committee. This is another bill that will help the crime lab do some correctional things for them and some language. An act concerning the admissibility of certain records and reports of the crime lab. I hope for any questions you might have about this. Are there any questions from the committee? Technical difficulties again, y'all.
While we're waiting, why don't you explain us in a little more detail
Chair
Unverified
35:11
what this does while we're getting pulled up? What this bill does, it just actually, whenever we have a report issued, whether it's in a
Speaker 159
35:17
criminal court or a civil court, that the attestation would stand on either. The way it is right now, it is just on criminal proceedings. Representative Gilliam,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
35:34
you're recognized for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you could, just expound upon the reasoning of why we're moving and also adding the civil.
I mean, I know there's a reason. If you don't mind, just explain to the committee
Speaker 160
35:45
what that reason is. Sure. A lot of times
Chair
Unverified
35:48
we have cases that, of course, are criminal, and then they are moved over into civil proceedings later. And at times there can be asset forfeitures that are there as well. And this will allow us some times where the actual report could be introduced without actual analyst testimony in those civil proceedings. Mr. Channel, does this have the same exception like
on the criminal side if you provide the notice that says you reserve the right to still have somebody there, they'll still be able to be
there? Yes, Chair, it sure does. Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, Representative Talley, do you want to close your bill? All right, what's
the pleasure of the committee? Representative Ballinger's got a motion. Do
pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed House Bill 1359. Representative Talley, you recognize. Present House Bill 1361.
Do what? All right, Representative Talley, you recognize that 1361.
Representative Brent Talley
Unverified
37:24
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. This is another act that does some correctional language. It actually updates and adds down on line 34, DNA analysis, DNA database administration, and computer forensic analysis. So it kind of helps update this legislation, this statute. Other than that, it's just corrective language throughout that bill there. This is 1361. I'm sorry. Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
I apologize. House Bill 1361 is an act concerning the State Crime Laboratory to amend the memberships of the State Crime Laboratory Board. This is actually adding the executive director to the board. It also prevents any conflict of interest by having some – it does not allow the executive director to serve or have his vote on any deal dealing with his position, Like if he's hiring or firing any kind of business, the board addresses dealing with the executive director's position.
It takes him out of being able to
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
38:36
vote on those issues. Representative Gilliam, you recognize your question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Talley, if you wouldn't mind
maybe addressing for our benefit why now that we have a need for an executive director when we've not had one before? Sure. I'll
Representative Brent Talley
Unverified
38:48
try and address that, and then I'll certainly let Mr. Channel
address that as well. The issue that I've been proposed with is that, you know, they continue to have some,
there's times the executive director to break ties in those decisions and to carry out the business of the crime lab, that the executive director could be an asset to that
and through this capacity could help with that. Mr. Channel, I'll be able to address that a little better. Just
Chair
Unverified
39:15
one other facet of this, it allows us to more easily obtain a quorum. Probably one or two times a year we're unable to get a quorum. We do have physicians on our board that travel a great distance. They're very busy. And this would just give us the opportunity to have more frequent quorums.
Representative Nichols, you're recognized. Yes. By adding the executive director to this board, does this mean that when the executive director calls one other board member to discuss an issue, that they now have to notify the press under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act? It's my understanding that I could
Speaker 159
40:04
discuss issues. That would have to come before a board meeting.
So if there were any issues,
it would have to come from the chairman. But I would assume now that you can contact a board member without violating the Freedom of Information Act. Is that correct? That's correct. And that if you're added to the board, I think you would be prohibited from talking to one other board member about any issues that may appear before the board.
Chair
Unverified
40:41
That's correct outside a physical board meeting. That would be
correct. Well, I think that, to me, that would hamstring what an executive director would want to see accomplished. And you may end up having to notify the press every time you want to talk to an individual board member about an issue. And I think that's not something that an executive director would want to have to do.
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
41:13
That's correct. In reality, we have very little contact with our board outside of meetings, but I do understand your
the FOI implications, I will be opposed to this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Shepard, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. One of the benefits
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
41:41
that was alluded to by adding the executive director to this board is the ability to break ties.
And I guess, obviously, you're making an odd number of nine as opposed to eight. And I guess my question is, what are the feelings of the present board with regard to this addition? I mean, can you shed some light on their dealings to this point? Is this an effort to, I mean, is there gridlock on that board? Is this an effort to sway that board one way or the other, or is it something else?
Speaker 130
42:22
No, there's definitely not gridlock on the board. And before we went down this road, this was presented to the board with
Chair
Unverified
42:28
their approval. It primarily was to address those situations when we don't have a quorum. Representative Walker, you're
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there a person functioning now as the executive director without the title?
Speaker 135
42:54
As far as I am the executive director, not on the board.
I am. So the effect of this would
Speaker 159
43:01
be to put you on the board? Yes, I attend and present at every board
meeting, but I'm not a voting member. That's correct. I see. So you would be the only person on the board not appointed by whomever the governor is? That's correct. In terms of the selection, well, first of all, job duties, apparently you have a job description already? Yes, sir, I do. And the selection process was such that the position that you hold was open to the public as all public jobs are supposed to be.
Is that right? Yes, my position is appointed by the governor. Yours is appointed by the governor? Yes, sir. So it's not a selection process that allows any person in the public to compete for that position? Not in a competitive matter. That's correct. Is there any particular reason positions like executive director ought not to be subject to public competition in the good capitalistic
form of government we have?
Representative Walker, if we could maybe stay a little
more focused on the bill. I think we're getting a little late. Well, no. The reason I'm asking is this. Almost all of the agencies that have come before this committee have had a director who is usually male and non-African American. And I'm concerned that as long as the process we have is continued, it will continue to be that way and there will be no inclusivity in the administration of state government.
I understand you're concerned, but a little off from the bill. Are you okay
with the business, Mr. Walker? Okay. Representative Gillum, you had
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
44:44
a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Talley, in light of it, and I think Representative Nichols made some
fantastic points earlier, and in light of that, would you be willing to maybe look, instead of adding the executive director, but just if the purpose is to break the quorum, or excuse me, to break a tie and to create the quorum, maybe look at just having a ninth member and it not be the executive director.
Would you be willing to maybe look at that possibility to accomplish your same goals? Okay, Representative Talley,
you want to just pull this bill down and work on amendment? Yes,
sir. Let's pull this bill and amend it. Representative
Representative Brent Talley
Unverified
45:28
Talley, you're recognized. Present House Bill 1362. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, this is an act concerning with the confidential records kept by the state crime lab. What it does is allows in the cases where there's not a criminal investigation, it allows the state crime laboratory to communicate without prioritization to the next of kin.
So that's kind of it. That's the intent
of this bill. Any questions from the committee?
See none. We're still pulling it up. Representative Nichols,
you recognize for a question. I had a constituent call me a couple years ago.
His daughter had passed away, and he was trying to get some type of determination so he could move forward, and there was quite a bit of delay in, I guess, trying to determine the possibility of foul play or something like that. What type of delay do we currently have on notifying the next of kin?
Chair
Unverified
46:52
Specifically, the delay is not necessarily in notifying the next of kin, because that does not come under our purview. But regarding official documentation and reports, medical examiner reports tend to be about 60 days on average.
And what's the cause of it takes 60 days on average, because that can be six months, it could be one week for
Chair
Unverified
47:19
some. Yes, sir. Again, every case is complex in itself, but the job of the medical examiner is to perform two functions.
One is to ascertain the cause of death, and the secondary component is the manner of death. The cause of death can be as simple as a gunshot wound to the head, but the manner is going to be determined by homicide, suicide, accident, and a lot of that information comes from law enforcement to us before we make that termination. And not only that, the toxicology analysis can take time in any given case, And right now, for toxicology analysis, it's on average about
30 to 40 days. Okay. Is that the normal amount to get a tox results back?
Speaker 187
48:01
Yes, sir, it is. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir.
Any other questions from the committee? Nobody signed up to speak for it again, so seeing no further questions. Representative Talley, you want to close your bill? He's closed for his bill. What's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Killam has a motion to do pass. All those in
favor say aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, Mr. Talley. You passed your bill. Representative Talley, was that all you had today?
Unknown speaker
48:32
Representative Williams. Representative Williams, you're recognized.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
49:03
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, staff's handing out a report. I have
been the voice crying in support of Act 570. I meant to do this earlier on in the session, so forgive my tardiness, and please allow my indulgence. They're passing out the Act 570 report after some time, after over a year's worth of work between 2010 and 2011, the 88th General Assembly passed Act 570, and this report is for members
who may not have been here. We have 11 new members on the committee, and this report kind of gives you an overview of what we did. And just to briefly explain that, in a term-limited environment, we sometimes don't have historical knowledge to draw on. In 2011, the state of Arkansas was faced with a problem in our criminal justice system, our Department of Corrections. We had gone from spending $45 million a year to spending $350 million a year in a short 20-year period of time.
Our prison forecaster suggested that in 10 years, we would need an additional $1.1 billion
in addition to what we were currently spending. So the three branches of government, the Supreme Court, the governor, and the legislative branch came together and put together a working group, and after years' worth of work, what came from that working group was Act 570. These were policy decisions that the 88th General Assembly made that are not binding on the 89th General Assembly, but I share this information just by way of information so there will be some continuity between General Assembly since we do have 11 new members. Just briefly, the panel
found, the working group found there were three causes of our prison overcrowding and prison
cost rise. The first was we underutilized probation in our prison system 23% below the national average. The second, we imposed our criminals to longer sentences. We were
imposing sentences 196% above our own voluntary sentencing guidelines, and thirdly, we delayed transfer our prisoners from prison to parole by an average of about six months, which cost us about 1,200 beds per year at a tune of over $20,000.
So what the recommendations outlined in that report show what the General Assembly did and thought would work to try to, one, maintain public safety, two, control prison growth, and three, control cost. This was not something new. Everything we did was based on evidence-based principles. Several other states had done something similar. We are one of the first states to do it, but we're not by far not the only. This smart sentencing or evidence-based principles has been expanded throughout the country.
And I just want to let you all know when you hear me harping on Act 570, a little bit of what that was about. And I want to just quickly share some success. It's still early, but I'm optimistic that we'll continue to see success. When we passed, when we introduced Act 570, there were
approximately 2,000 inmates sitting in county jail that could not get in state prison. Earlier this year, that number went down to
below 200, the first time since the late 1990s. Also, the felony conviction rate for those who are on parole and probation
reduced last year by 1,000 inmates, and our crime rate has remained constant. So I think early indications that Act 570 is working, and I would just plead with this committee to give time for this act to work to make sure that we continue to maintain public safety, we continue to control costs, and we continue to reduce the population in our prison system because the alternative really will be more taxes, more money. And so I appreciate the chair's indulgence to allow me to share this report with you, and I want to commend several people who worked hard on this and who continue to work on the implementation, particularly DCC, Director Eberhardt and Wade Hodge,
General Counsel is here, DOC, Donna Tyler, I think is here, the Sentencing Commission, Sandy Mull, the AOC, J.D. Gingrich, and Ray Hobbs also from the DOC, and Chairman Feltz from the Parole Board is also here and his staff. And I just want to commend them for their hard work. We passed the legislation, but it's their responsibility to implement it. They've done a good job for the state of Arkansas, and I think this bill continues to be a success. And so I appreciate your indulgence for allowing me
to share that. And with that, I'll be happy to talk about what I'm supposed to be down here talking about.
Real briefly, Representative Williams, one, you've worked pretty hard on it yourself. I encourage everybody, if you've
got any questions, to first talk to Representative Williams. He knows a lot about it. Representative Gilliam, I believe, wanted to ask
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
53:42
you a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Williams, when you were shepherding this bill last time and moving
it through, I know that there were a lot of questions that you had to answer concerning community corrections and there were some concerns about, you know, possible staffing issues and how that would work.
And to this date, have they encountered any of those issues that people had concerns about? I haven't heard of any myself. I just was curious. Well, you'll
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
54:12
probably get mixed reviews from people. But I will say that we've hired an additional 49, I believe, parole and probation officers for DCC. Obviously, they'd like to have more. a function of resources. Their ratio of parole and probationers to parole officers probably is not where they would like for it to
be, but it's much better than where it was. So
we're doing a much better job. And I think one indication of that is that last year 1,000 fewer parole and probationers committed another felony. So
I think that's a huge stat and a plus for the hard work. And part of that is what we did in implementing an intermediate sanctioning this grid, which allows the parole and probation officer a lot of flexibility to really work with parole and probationers to try to change behavior and reduce recidivism. And that was the whole purpose, trying to reduce the revolving
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
55:00
door of our prison system. Thank you for that question. Thank you, and thank you for your work
on it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Lastly, Representative Steele,
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
55:10
question, then we're going to move on to the second bills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Williams, one thing
I'm concerned about here is Lines 18 and Lines 22. It looks like we're changing the deadline for people to state a reasonable objection to parole here. On the prosecutors, we're moving it from 30-day deadline down to report. Representative, are you talking about on the Pew report line? No, I
think I'm looking at the bill. I hope I am. He just wanted to give an overview of the Pew report first.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
55:37
Oh, okay. I'll start with that one if you'd like me to, Mr. Chairman. That's
House Bill 1350. I'll start there if that's
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
55:46
okay. That's fine, Representative. We'll recognize House Bill 1350. House Bill 1350 are technical corrections to Act 570. These are things that DCC and others have looked at that said we need to make small tweaks and changes to make Act 570 a better bill. If you remember, those who are here, this bill is about 120 pages, and we always said there may be some changes we need to make going forward.
So what you see in this bill, I think there are seven sections, are the technical changes. These should not be very substantive, but these should be technical changes, and I'll try to address the very first one that Representative Steele, which is Section 3. In Section 3, we are changing the notice requirement. Previously, DCC had to notify in seven days. We're moving it out to 30 days because while DCC had no less than seven days to notify,
the probation – sorry, the prosecuting attorneys had to respond within 30 days. So that was inconsistency. You've got seven days to notify, but you've got 30 days to respond. It just didn't work. So this is just really a glitch, and it's changing from allowing the DCC to notify of discharge in 30 days, and it gives the prosecutors 14 days to object or to respond.
So it's making it consistent. You really couldn't do what they were supposed to do. What they're trying to do with the bill is
just a mistake in the statute. Representative Williams, let me interrupt you here. I apologize.
Did you have an amendment to this bill? A member's own? I
don't think so. It should already be engrossed. the bill is currently up in the house so we don't we don't have it uh i apologize for that if you
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
57:37
don't mind we it's on it was um it was engrossed on monday um but i'll be happy to wait until it's on the calendar let us find out what happened
i don't want to make that if you'll run
go ahead and run your house bill 1309 i
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
57:56
appreciate it uh 1309 1309 is a bill by the Department of Correction. This bill is very simple. It's updating the language we use in our code. We no longer want to refer to our folks in prison as convicts. We prefer to refer to them as inmates. So it's simple changing the reference from convict to inmate throughout the code. That's all this bill does.
See any questions from the committee? Seeing none and nobody signed up Representative Williams, you're closed for your bill I am closed,
we appreciate a good vote Thank you, what's a pleasure with the committee Representative Neal has a motion to pass All those in favor say aye All those opposed, nay, looks like the ayes have
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
58:40
it Congratulations, you passed your bill, Representative Williams With the chair and members' permission I'd like to remove House Bill 1138 from deferred And hear that now, if that's okay That's
not to have a motion to suspend the rules All those in favor, Representative Neal make that motion
All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, ayes have it. Recognize the essential
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
58:56
bill. House Bill 1138 simply allows the Department of Community Correction to do what the Department of Correction currently can do. The Department of Correction currently can seek reimbursement from an inmate if they are found to have money to pay for their care and custody. Someone in the Department of Community Correction right now, they are not required or the DCC is not allowed to seek reimbursement for the care and custody. if someone who resides in a residential facility
of the Department of Community Correction. This simply allows for the Department of
Community Correction to have the same authority as the Department of Correction to seek reimbursement for
funds they expend in housing someone. Thank you, Representative Williams. We've got a couple technical
Speaker 198
59:47
difficulties. Again, give us just a second. Yeah, you're right.
Unknown speaker
59:52
There it is. Thank you, sir. All right, with any questions from the committee?
Any questions? Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the committee? Got a motion. Representative Steele do pass. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have. Congratulations, you
passed your bill. So, Representative Steele, you're recognized next. Present your bill.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:01:08
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, I'm presenting House Bill 1324. This is a bill that was studied and vetted by the Association of Counties and the Sheriff's Association. It's a small change to current law. Basically, it does two things. This bill, one, moves the limited time that a sheriff has to serve an execution notice from 60 days to 90 days. I think that's been the trend.
We've seen more traffic in that area of the law. There have been more executions with the downturn in the economy and things like that. The sheriffs are overwhelmed. So this simply just extends that time period for them to serve that execution from 60 days to 90 days. The second thing it does is it clarifies the code was not consistent in the level of personal liability that a sheriff may have when it comes to these executions. This clarifies that willful conduct, which is already in the code in other areas, but it wasn't in this particular statute.
So we just wanted to clarify and make sure that it's still willful conduct that would subject that individual to personal liability. I think Representative Walker and others who know this area of law would know that's the standard across the board when it comes to government employees. They don't have personal liability unless they have some kind of willful conduct. And as I said, that was already in the Code in other areas. This bill just clarifies for this statute, for purposes of this statute, that sheriffs now have 90 days to serve the execution and are not personally liable absent willful conduct.
Speaker 205
1:02:36
And I'll be happy to take any questions.
All right, committee, any questions from the committee?
Nobody signed up to speak for or against. Representative Steele, you close for your bill.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:02:50
I am. Your sheriffs will thank you, and
I'd appreciate a good vote. All right, what's the pleasure of the committee? Got a motion.
Representative Neal and Hodges, a motion to do pass. All those in
Chair
Unverified
1:03:03
favor say aye. All those opposed, congratulations. You have passed your bills. Thank you, members. Representative Catlett.
Representative Catlett. Representative Catlett, you're recognized to present House Bill 1271.
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
1:03:27
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. I'm here to introduce House Bill 1271, which is simply put, the look-back period for DWI-4 offense for seizure, confiscation of a motor vehicle. In past years, a look-back period, I don't know exactly when it changed, but it went from three years to five years for DWIs, counting DWIs. For the fourth offense, which is a felony offense for DWI, driving while intoxicated,
the officer can seize the vehicle and, of course, the courts, it's always been said within three years could confiscate the vehicle and sell the vehicle at public auction, and the money goes distributed amongst the courts. What I'd like to do is increase that to five years, and I'll be happy to take any questions, sir. MR. Representative Gilliam, you're recognized for
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:04:24
a question. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the obvious question here, Representative Catlett, would be why.
If you wouldn't mind expounding upon the reasoning to
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
1:04:35
move from 3 to 5? Certainly. The look-back period for the counter-DWIs is five years, and it wasn't changed whenever we went from 3 to 5, and the vehicle seizure is an important part of that, is hopefully that'll, you know, after the fourth one, my goodness, it's a felony offense, and I feel it appropriate, two Cs and the courts confiscate that vehicle.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:05:02
Okay. One follow-up, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. So, this is basically bringing this particular section of code in line with other sections of code. Is that what I understood? Yes, sir. The look-back
Speaker 124
1:05:14
period, four DWI counts is five years. If you
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
1:05:16
get four DWIs in a five-year period, it's a felony. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from
the committee? Nobody assigned to speak for or against.
Representative Catlett, are you closed for your bill? Yes, sir.
Representative Catlett is closed for his bill. What's the pleasure of the committee? Got a motion by Representative Steele. Do pass. All those in favor say aye. All those
Speaker 198
1:05:45
opposed? Ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. Representative
Ballinger, do you want to present House Bill 170? I'm sorry, Senate Bill 170 Representative Ballinger, you're recognized
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:06:05
Thank you, Chairman Senate Bill 170 is a bill that essentially fills the gap in the law. It's a bill that hopefully, if made law, will never actually have to use. It essentially allows a mother to use force in order to protect the life of the unborn child, the fetus in her womb.
And it's something that's been passed in a couple other states. There's a situation that has precipitated this in Michigan where there is a woman who was attacked with the intent to kill the babies in her womb. And she used force to defend herself and found herself in prison for a couple years. Currently under Arkansas law, you can be tried actually with a homicide if you were to attack someone and terminate the pregnancy with the intent to do so. But yet there's no defense for a woman who would want to try to do that.
So this bill passed out of Senate Judiciary
and passed through the Senate, 35 to nothing. So I'd be happy to take any questions. Would you, Mr. Theroux? You're recognized. Tell
me again what you're seeking to accomplish by this bill. And essentially fill
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:07:36
a gap that would be an uncertainty in the law where if a person were to attack a woman and terminate a pregnancy, they could actually be tried for homicide.
But yet if the woman were to defend herself in that attack, then technically she could be tried for assault or battery or for manslaughter. I don't know, whatever it would be if she were to use force in order to try to
Speaker 216
1:08:02
defend the life of the baby. You may. Okay.
So this means, then, that you would be providing a benefit to the woman by preventing her from being possibly charged with a crime? Yes, sir.
Thank you. Representative Steele, you recognize? Thank you,
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:08:20
Mr. Chairman. Representative Ballinger, this seems reasonable, but I'm just curious to know, can you
imagine any scenario where a woman would not already be defending herself and fall under self-defense? I mean, is there a scenario that you can imagine where someone could put the fetus in harm but not the woman herself? I'm just curious to know. The
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:08:39
situation would be, I mean, you are allowed in self-defense to use force to defend if you feel reasonably threatened that your life is in danger.
If a person were to come up and say, and it's an absurdity, although absurdities always happen in the law, we know, and so that's the idea we want to cut it off. And a person were to say, you know, I'm not looking to hurt you, but I'm going to terminate this pregnancy. And according to the CDC, 180,000 cases of it were where a person was purposely attacked with the intent of terminating the pregnancy. So that's the idea of trying to
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:09:10
fill that gap. Would that be, if I might, Mr. Chairman, would that be some kind of poisoning or attack on the womb?
Or how, have you had, did I mention any statistics as far as how someone would target a baby inside a mother without targeting the mother? Most of the times from the things
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:09:26
that I've read is a punch in the stomach. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Williams, you're recognized. Representative Belger,
Chair
Unverified
1:09:40
I appreciate what you're trying to do, but you can't really
get to the fees, so what really does this bill do?
I mean, you've got to go through the mother and her somehow, so what does this bill do that a woman can't already
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:09:56
do? Well, currently, if a person were to come up to a woman and say, I'm not looking to do any permanent damage. All I'm going to do is terminate this pregnancy, and I'm going to punch you in the stomach. And the woman were to defend herself using force, she could legally be held liable for that force, which is exactly what happened in Michigan. Now, I would hate to see the court that would do that, but frankly, all the attorneys in this room and most other people have seen absurdities in the law happen before.
So really this bill is not a big bill, should never be used, but it's something that we can do to cut off something that would be foolish down the road by passing this bill. And like I said, you know, it passed 35 to 0 in the Senate.
I mean, I think it's just kind of a good bill filling a little gap in the law. Any other questions for committee? Nobody
has signed to speak for or against the bill. Do you want to close? Representative Williams has a question. I just had a motion at the proper time. Okay. You want to close your bill?
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:10:54
I just would appreciate the committee and just appreciate a good vote. All right, Representative Williams, what's your motion?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:11:05
Seeing how this has no impact on 570 does not create a new crime, I would ask a motion of do pass. Thank you, Representative Williams. All right,
we know where Representative Williams is coming from. All right, we've got a motion. Do pass. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:11:58
You're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm
going to start off with House Bill 1325, Committee. You know we hear the term a lot, this is a little old bill that doesn't do nothing. This ain't that bill, okay? This is a long bill. It's a complicated bill, but I've worked with the Administrative Office of the Courts. I have Andrew Walchuck here with me that can also ask some of your questions. What this, over the last 10, 12 years or even further back, we have seen a lot more people introduced into the legal system that don't speak English, okay?
And there are tons of different languages that we now have to deal with. This bill does not cost the state any other money, no additional funds. What this bill does is streamline and codify Arkansas law to get it more in line with federal law and making sure people have access to our court system, whether criminally or civilly, and actually might help save the state a little money because it has provisions in civil cases
if somebody does not speak the English language and they have the financial means to pay for an interpreter that they have to pay for their own interpreter. It's really just bringing together all the rules and regulations for providing access to our courts for limited proficiency English speakers. I'd be more than happy to
take any questions or direct the questions to Andrew. Representative Steele. I've tried to get Representative Shepard to
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:13:33
ask these questions because I'm tired of asking questions, and I know you all are tired of hearing them.
Well, then don't ask them. Never mind, Mr. Shepard. Now, does this create any new requirements for those who
get licensed to be translators? I know I've had a lot of people in my district that were interested in translating that are bilingual, and the licensing process is a really rigorous one. Does this do anything for licensing translators? No, it's still all under the purview of the AOC. But, I mean, this doesn't create any
qualifications or make it easier or harder to be licensed to be a translator? No. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
1:14:10
Representative Ballinger. You know, just reading this bill, and this is not something I have a lot of experience with, do we have the availability of translators now? I mean, to me, it seems like at least in some places there may be limited access to them. And will this bill, does
it really address that? Well, right now, there are so many languages that I've learned about that I didn't realize that we were having to deal with. Is it difficult for us to cover everything? Yes, but this also provides for us being able to go outside the state to bring in an interpreter
if we find one of those languages where we just don't have to ensure that we can now provide a translator
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:14:58
for that person. Are there any further questions from the committee? I don't have anyone signed up for or against from the audience. So Representative Wright, do you want to close for your bill? I appreciate a good vote. Are you making that motion? Make a motion. Do pass. All right. Very well. Motion on the floor is do pass.
House Bill 1325. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Same sign. Congratulations, Representative Wright. House Bill 1325 is passed.
Thank you. May I present House Bill 1326? Absolutely. It's your pleasure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1325, and I have Director Phelps here to help explain with the Pro Board.
26. I'm sorry, 26, 1326. It basically allows hearing officers from the Board of Parole, if they are licensed, if they have a concealed carry license. Representative Wright, let me stop you there. I believe we
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:16:04
have an amendment on this one. Do you have an amendment to this bill, Representative?
Mr. Chairman, my mistake. You're correct. Okay. I'll bring this one back. You want to
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:16:32
pull it down? Okay. We'll bring 1326 back. Do we have anyone else here to present a bill? Seeing no further action, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. And we will see you Thursday morning at 10 o'clock. I didn't get to bang the gavel.
Agenda
HB1250
HB1265
HB1355
HB1358
HB1359
HB1361
HB1362
HB1350
HB1309
HB1138
HB1324
HB1271
SB170
HB1325
HB1326
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Marshall Wright Chair
Unverified
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 19
Representative John W. Walker Chair
Unverified
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 44
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 57
Pamela Ware
Unverified
Speaker 72
Speaker 73
Erin Blome
Unverified
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
Speaker 12
Speaker 101
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 113
Speaker 115
Representative Brent Talley
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 130
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
Speaker 141
Speaker 159
Speaker 160
Representative Jim Nickels Chair
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 135
Speaker 187
Speaker 198
Speaker 205
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
Speaker 124
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
Speaker 216
Speaker 181
Speaker 230
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified