House Judiciary Committee Part 2
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB2044
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB2044”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2191
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB2191”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2120
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2120”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2146
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2146”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB745
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB745”
|
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 5, 2026
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
0:00
Here for House Bill 2044, and I believe House Bill 2191, both of them, Mr. Elliott, you want to run? Welcome to House Judiciary, and you
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
0:13
are recognized for 2044 first. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, wonderful colleagues who are on Judiciary. I know that this will be a wonderful experience. House Bill 2044 that I'm going to start with addresses parole, people who are on parole.
And if they're on parole, they shouldn't be in establishments that actually sell alcohol or be at clubs that sell alcohol. I'm addressing this issue in reference to my district. We have a lot of people who may parole, and sometimes law enforcement finds them at different clubs or parties and drinking establishments, and different things may happen. So what we come up with was we're trying to exclude them from doing that.
Generally, in their parole, they're excluded from doing it, But I think this gives it a little bit more teeth by putting it into a law or a bill. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Members, any
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:33
questions? First, I see Mr. Nichols. Now, you're going to, I think your bill
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:41
is going to, excuse me, at first I thought it was just a shell bill.
There wasn't an amendment to it, but after closer examination, I see it is a bill. But mandatory revocation, if you go and visit your brother who may be working in a liquor store, is that what you're
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
2:02
wanting to do here? No, sir. That means if you're going into some form of a liquor store purchasing an item. Well, it doesn't say
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
2:11
that. If the purpose of the store is selling alcohol, that's all it takes.
And, you know, what about the Kroger store where they're licensed to sell beer and wine? And I think that's the premises. of a place that is selling alcohol. If you go into some Walmarts, they sell beer and wine. Am I missing something here, or would your bill actually cause a mandatory revocation
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
2:52
for going to a Wal-Mart. The primary purpose of this is for a parolee not
to go into some form of a club or a drinking establishment. It's not to prohibit them from going into the local Kroger or Wal-Mart. I think the issue is when we do have someone on parole and they go into these different clubs, it generally adds on to some of the trouble that happens.
So we're just thinking about primary
areas like clubs or some other drinking establishments. Well, I'm concerned about
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
3:32
this being a far-reaching bill that's going to be very punitive to people that the unintended consequences here are going to be relocating a lot of parole I would assume then that if they revocate their parole, they go back to prison. Is
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
3:53
that right? Well, that doesn't necessarily mean that they go back into prison.
It just means that the parole officer will
address the issue, and at that point, they'll make
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
4:06
that decision. Well, your title is, you know, your section is mandatory revocation. So it looks to me like this is a very onerous bill that just because somebody
is on the premises where they sell alcohol, it's very
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
4:25
punitive. Would you agree? MR. Well, no. I think that any time someone is on parole, there are certain guidelines that they have
address their parole, and generally speaking, not being in any form of drinking establishments or clubs are generally those things that are listed. Okay. So if it's already covered by the rules,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
4:47
why do we need this law? Because we need to
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
4:52
make it more uniformed and make sure that people who are around the state and parolees who are around the state that go to different places like Pine Bluff understand that they if they are on parole they should not be in drinking
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
5:07
establishments or clubs but if they do determine that the the parole officer can start their revocation procedures
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
5:24
can they not yes sir they
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
5:30
can start it thank you mr. chairman thank you mr. Gilliam you recognize thank you mr. Chair, just as a kind of a housekeeping matter, would because of the connotation and the following
line of thought that Representative Nichols had here, does this need a prison impact statement?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
5:53
Ms. Williams is back there. She's got a smile on her face. She's got one. we're sorry we didn't get this to you earlier members we should have had that earlier we'll get that out probably give one to Mr. Elliott since he hadn't seen it either
who would have done that Mr. Chair Mr. Elliott the sentencing commission does impact studies whenever you have a bill that under house rules whenever you have a bill that impacts the population of the Department of Correction or programs of the Department of Correction or its budget, you have to have a physical impact. And this is consistent with our laws. It's a House rule, not a committee rule, so we have to have it. So you comply with it by having it. I'm not sure it's going to help you, but you comply with it by having it.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
6:46
Mr. Chair, may I ask one quick follow-up question? Sure, you still have the floor. Thank you. Representative Elliott, in looking at this here, Maybe if you could help us with a little bit of background information or a little clarity here, this might help us. Looking at any parolee on line 23 here who is found to have violated his or her parole by being on the premises here, who would this apply to? I mean, is it a violation of everyone's parole to be on the premises of a business that sells alcohol as its primary purpose?
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
7:25
Yes, sir. It would be any person who is paroled at our department of correction. Okay. All
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
7:33
right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Gillum. Let's see. Mr. Marshall, you recognize? Thank
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
7:41
you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Allen, how do you think this would affect somebody that may want a job
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
7:50
working at a liquor store? I think along with other issues, if you're a person who's paroled out
and you know that you're not supposed to be at an establishment, you
wouldn't want. Well, that's not a prohibition on
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
8:04
all parolees. It's not a what? It's not a prohibition on all parolees that they can't be in an establishment that sells alcoholic beverages. I'll just tell you, what I'm concerned with is somebody that wants a job. They've employed. some proleys that are good, hard-working people that have done their time and taken their punishment. And I feel this would be, don't you think
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
8:26
this would unfairly punish them? No, I don't. Thank
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
8:34
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Wilkins, you recognize
Speaker 47
8:37
then Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker, I've got you on the list. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Elliott, a couple of my questions have already been responded to. I think The first one had to do with the primary purpose of selling alcohol, what the establishment is for.
So that answers the question about Walmart or wherever. And then the question that Representative Wright was just asking, and maybe I need some additional clarification, but it says if the person is found to have violated his or her parole by being on the premises. I'm wondering, I don't know how the department would normally go about that.
How would they find out that this
Speaker 49
9:30
person is, would they be reported by someone, or
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
9:35
would there be maybe an issue that they're in there? Representative Wilkins, what would happen is if that person had gotten into some form of trouble or the police had to arrest them, then they could use this as well for them being revocated. So no one would
know unless they actually got in trouble.
Speaker 47
9:59
Okay. So your intended purpose then is if by violating their parole somebody finds themselves in difficulty of some kind, this could be used to begin revocation proceedings. That's correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. Mr. Walker, are you
Speaker 53
10:23
recognized? Yes, I have several questions, if
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
10:29
Go right ahead, Mr. Walker. Are you aware of how probation works, Mr. Elliott? I'm not a probationary officer. Well, I'm just curious to know, are
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
10:44
you aware that it's the judge who determines whether or not probation is appropriate? Yes, I'm aware of that. Are you aware that the judge sets the terms? I am aware of that. Are you seeking to add another term to the terms that the judge can, in his discretion or her discretion, implement?
Are you making it mandatory on the judge to set out as a condition of probation that a person cannot be on the premises of a business establishment whose primary purpose is selling alcohol? Are you seeking
to mandate that upon the judge? No, I'm just giving a tool that the judge can use. Well, it says shall. Shall is not discretionary. Would you not agree? I would
agree. All right, so that means the judge must do what is said here, doesn't it?
Yes. And it doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not the person's primary conviction has anything to
do with alcohol or any behavior related to alcohol, doesn't it? Well, they wouldn't know unless they were at an establishment and they got in trouble. Well, this doesn't say an establishment where they got in trouble. Being
at the establishment is the trouble, isn't it?
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
12:09
But no one would know unless that person got arrested.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
12:13
What if someone just said to a parole officer, I saw Joe Blow, who's
a parolee, at the liquor store? Then that parole officer would have to investigate that.
Well, no, it says, shall begin revocation proceedings. It doesn't say investigation proceedings. It says revocation
proceedings. Yeah, it also says that, but that person still would have
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
12:39
to investigate if that person was there.
Just because a person says that you may be there, you may not be there. Well, now, it says, though. So how would you, as you were saying, how would that person know that parole officer would have to put in the work to find
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
13:02
out if that person was there? Now, what is the correlation? Well, first of all, what necessitates this? I'm just curious to know. I've never seen anything coming from a minority member so onerous. Can you tell me what circumstance precipitates the urgent
need to put this in the law?
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
13:19
Well, in our area, we've been having some issues with people who are paroled and going to different clubs and then getting into additional trouble, being on parole and going to different establishments and getting arrested or
getting into fights or sometimes even shootings. What if a
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
13:40
person is a security officer, though not with arms, working there to try to help keep the security and the peace,
and that person is on parole? You
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
13:54
can provide security, can't you? Well, Representative Walker, we can go over several different scenarios. We can say, what if the sky is falling? I can't address all what-ifs. The only thing I can tell you is what the intention of the bill
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
14:13
is. All right. Now, I'd like to just have this, and I think this will be fine. If a number of people have their probation revoked as a consequence of being on the premises of a business establishment
like a club that sells alcohol, you said it's a number of people. That does mean that it has, if revocation does occur, it has the effect of
sending people back to prison, doesn't it? Well, I would hope that if this passes out, I would hope if this passes out that it would deter them from death. Well, I understand. Deter it so, you actually recognize that people would actually be going back to prison,
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
14:58
don't you? Well, once again, I would hope that once they know about it, then they would not attend those establishments.
And so, therefore, it would have a reverse effect. It would stop them from doing it.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
15:10
I don't mean to get in an argument, but the Bible, Mr. Hammer's favorite book, So Thou Shall Not Steal, that hasn't had any deterrence on
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
15:18
the script. Yeah, but this bill doesn't address the Bible. You can probably come up and develop one, and it does. All right.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
15:25
Mr. Chair, may I ask a couple of questions of the person who prepared the impact statement? Sure. Mr. Williams,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
15:32
would you come to the table for a couple of questions?
Why are you doing that? I've got Mr. Powers on the list. Anybody else have questions? No one else? Good. Let's see.
Lindsay Williams
Unverified
15:46
Ms. Lindsay? Please identify yourself for us, Ms. Williams.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
15:49
My name is Lindsay Williams. I'm with the Arkansas Sentencing Commission. In the impact statement that you have prepared, Ms. Williams, you indicated this creates mandatory revocation. Is that correct? Yes, sir. That's your opinion. And mandatory revocation necessarily results in a return to imprisonment, doesn't it,
at least under the Department
Lindsay Williams
Unverified
16:11
of Corrections? Well, I'm not going to say that I'm an expert on how the revocation stuff works. There could possibly be someone
Speaker 65
16:20
here from the Department of Community Corrections who
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
16:23
could answer that question for you, though. We've got someone coming here shortly from DCC, Mr. Walker. But now, if a person is revoked for simply being around a place which sells liquor and the person is mandatory revoked, that would necessarily mean that the costs of operating the prisons would be materially increased, doesn't it?
More than likely, yes. Is it fair to say that when you have revocation and people return to prison, they are at least sentenced for a period of between
Speaker 74
16:58
three months and a year or more? I honestly
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:01
cannot answer that question for you. All right. So when you say that you don't have impact information, you're not saying it's not available. You're just saying that you weren't able to put it together
Lindsay Williams
Unverified
17:11
within the time you had. Well, we don't know how often this, how frequently this is happening. Apparently, it's happening quite frequently in his area. but we don't have any data available to us for us to put information together for an impact statement.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:23
So we'll give you a number. So you have no way for determining how many people go into liquor establishments? Correct. But you, on your own practical knowledge, know that it's a whole lot of them, don't you? Probably. All right. So that we're talking about perhaps multiplying the cost of prisons, what do you call it, expotentially? MS. I'd say it's possible. MR. Exponentially. Exponentially, not potentially.
Initial is the reality. Tential is possible. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. MR. Thank
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
18:01
you, Mr. Walker. Ms. Rogers? I'm sorry, Mr. Powers, and then
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
18:10
Mr. Chairman. Representative Elliott, my question is regarding mandatory revocation. Yes, sir. Are we charting new water here, or are there other instances within statute that says there is a mandatory revocation for a certain offense?
That's what I don't know. Is there another instance? Because I'm kind of like Mr. Walker. You know, I understand the judge approves, you know, and the parole officer and everybody gets together and this parole plan is approved and the guidelines are set up. I'm wondering if there's something
else out there that creates a mandatory
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
18:56
revocation issue. Representative Powers, I'm not, I don't know.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
19:01
Well, here's my concern. MR. Mr. Powers, I can help you with that. Okay.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
19:07
MR. There's nothing else out there that creates a mandatory revocation. And as written, the bill is not at all consistent with the swift and certain sanctions
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
19:17
that we passed in this present reform bill. MR. And that's kind of one of my concerns, Representative, is that we are, I'm afraid that we may end up cobbling together in future legislative sessions these mandatory revocations which would frankly, I think, fly in the face of the resentencing or the reform bill we
just passed out of the
legislature. So that's my comment, and I'll stop right there. Thank you.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
19:44
Thank you, Mr. Rogers. No questions? Any additional questions, members? Mr. Chair, I do see some of
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
19:51
the concerns of the committee, and I would like to pull this bill down and take it into interim study. That's proper. If you want to withdraw it and take it to interim
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
20:05
study, you'll have to take it to Amber. If you want us to have a motion here
to send it to interim study, we'll do that. Is that what you want us to do? Yes, sir. All right. Well, members, there's Mr. Representative Wilkins has a motion to send House Bill 2044 to interim study. One of the subcommittees of this committee all in favor indicate by saying aye opposed no eyes have it your bill has been properly placed in interim study thank you mr. Elliott would you like to run House Bill
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
20:40
2191 I would also like to put this in the interim study
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
20:44
you want to do it here you want to withdraw it and put it in the interim study first to do it here all right we have a motion no no I'm sure yeah he's Yeah, I'm sorry. Do you have a motion to send House Bill 2191 to interim study? All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Mr. Elliott, your bills both have been sent to interim study by this committee. You still need to see Amber, the clerk, to make sure she withdraws these and puts them in interim study. And while we're on that note, anyone who has a bill who has decided that they want to send it to interim study,
please be sure to see Amber. She's the clerk that we send bills to when we want to put Senate bills on the calendar. Be sure you see her have your bill so it will be officially sent to interim study. All right, members, let's see if we can. Here we are. One second. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me. Thank you, Mr. Elliott.
We hope you got lunch. Did you get lunch? Thank you. Didn't get much else out of us. That's all right.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
21:54
Mr. Chairman, I believe that I would like to have my bill sent for interim study, too, and that's the one, 2146. 2146? Yes. It's an act regarding the illegal disbursement of funds by a judge regarding the prohibition against payments to a public defender or prosecuting attorney, and for other purposes. This is a situation.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
22:30
Mr. Chairman, I shall move. Yes. All right. Well, we have a motion to send House Bill 2146 to interview study. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Is Representative McLean here or former Representative
Speaker 88
22:44
Cheney-Taylor here? I don't see them. Mr. Chairman, I move that House Bill 1994 be sent to interim study.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
22:52
For a motion, all in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. House Bill 1944 will also be sent to interim study.
1994. I'm sorry, 1994. Mr. – that's right, Mr. McLean's bill. I was running that for him. He asked me to do that for
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
23:08
him. Okay. If we do pass a motion to go to interim study, do we still need to
go see Amber? Yes. Okay. Do I need a positive vote here and see Amber? But if Amber's not told, whatever we did doesn't count. Is that
right? Okay. All right. So, Representative Walker, that's what that means.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
23:31
Anyone who's sending the bills to enter the study, you still need to see Amber and tell her. Anyone else here have a House bill? I don't see one. Any member here ready to run another House bill? Representative Hammer, 2120, is that a bill you want to run? 2120 or 2119? 2119, we've already taken care
of that one. You don't want to start that again. No, I do not. Thank
Speaker 102
23:58
you. 2120 is the pawnbroker's bill?
I'd just like to see that thing die, to be honest
Speaker 58
24:05
with you. Does that mean you want to run it and let it die, or do you want to just
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:13
prefer a merciful, quick death. Mr. Chairman, I move that we kill it. It's
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
24:18
dead. Well, that was kind of rough. Off immediate consideration. Mr. Mayberry here for 2169. Anyone
here run that for Mr. Mayberry? No. Mr. Summers, I think that's 1580. I've read number 1580. Or is that 1880? House bill 1580. Mr. Summers, anyone here?
No. No. I believe that exhausts all the house bills. Anybody else see a house bill that I'm missing? Anybody
Speaker 91
24:53
got a quick Senate bill? Go ahead, Representative Shepard. 745.
Speaker 58
25:03
We've got about 10 minutes. No due pass. about that quick what's what's the number again seven senate bill 745 okay okay what's the title
Speaker 108
25:19
what's the title of this one Mr. Shepard, you recognize?
Speaker 113
25:41
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This is Senate Bill 745, which is Senator Lamoureux's bill. This is a bill that is part of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association legislative package. And I have with me today Prosecuting Attorney John Rydell from the 15th Judicial District, and he is out of Danville. As you can see, this provides some additional language with regard to the offense of concealing a corpse.
And with the chairman's permission, I'd like to have Mr. Rydell just shed some light on the necessity
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
26:18
of this bill. Absolutely. Mr. Rydell, please identify yourself, and
Speaker 114
26:21
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name, again, is John Rydell. I'm the Chief Deputy Prosecutor for the 15th District. The incumbents are Logan, Scott, Yale, and Conway Counties. This amends the current abuse of a corpse statute by basically adding an offense of concealing it in a manner offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities in an effort to total the statute of limitations.
It derives from a case that I had in Scott County wherein a defendant shot and killed her husband, dismembered the body and put it in a pond where it remained for about five years until it was discovered she was charged with murder and abuse of a corpse she was convicted of manslaughter and abuse of a corpse and subsequently the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the abuse of a corpse conviction saying that the statute of limitations began to run after she finished abusing the corpse meaning after she cut it up and put it in the pond
the statute of limitations began to run at that point in time which as a deep felony it's only three years so her charge of abuse of course was precluded by the statute of limitations the purpose of this is basically to make concealing it in a manner offensive to persons of reasonable sensibilities as a continuing offense wherein the statute begin to run after the concealment or the
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
27:42
corpse is discovered thank you we have a couple of questions I believe Mr. Hammer you recognize
Speaker 102
27:48
Thank you. Two questions, if I may, and I think I see the answer, but would you explain what qualifies a person who has reasonable sensibilities? I mean, that seems a little vague. Could you just assure me that that definition is tightened up tight there? Well, I believe that in
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
28:08
the manner of offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities was part of the original statute, and it's been
Speaker 114
28:13
on the books for a period of years. That's just basically a question for the jury.
In the proposed bill, it says it's not limited to the dismembering, submerging, or burning of a corpse, just to give a few examples. There was some concern of when this was being drafted about bodies being kept in a mausoleum or something like that, and I think that that might deter any abuse of that. Okay. And
Speaker 102
28:41
a follow-up question. And if you will educate me, what I'm thinking of is stillborn babies.
And I know that there are other laws that define when it is considered, you know, there are laws that are relevant to that. Would you educate me, please, as to how this is going to affect stillborn babies regardless of the age at which the birth of that baby is delivered? Say in the case a mom is at home, has the baby, teenagers at home, had the baby, can you please tie the knot as to how that is going to be impacted by this law?
Speaker 114
29:26
I can try. Now, assuming that does happen and they follow the proper channels as far as calling law enforcement or a coroner or whatever like that, this will have no impact on that. You know, this is obviously geared towards people who either, if I may, I had another case where a person dug up a grave and started trying to poke inside the casket to make sure there was something in there because they thought the person wasn't really dead, and that person was charged with abusive work. So I've got a couple of these.
Speaker 102
29:57
This is, to answer your question, be brief. I don't think it has any impact on that. If, may I, Mr. Chair? So if a baby is stillborn, say, 10 weeks, and the parent takes, the mom takes that stillborn baby and decides to just dispose of that stillborn baby, how are they going to be prosecuted under the law? if this law is passed.
Is it going to be considered a corpse is what I want to know. Is that stillborn baby, regardless of the age at which that baby is delivered, going to be considered a corpse? I understand the question. Unfortunately, I'm
Speaker 114
30:42
trying to write my brain and think if corpse is defined, if it has an age limit, I guess in your question, as far as number of weeks or months of gestation, and I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I would appeal to the chair
Speaker 102
30:54
to see if anybody else knows the answer to that question because I think it's very relevant. Is there anyone here who can help us with that?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
31:04
I don't think it will. We've got a lot of folks shaking their head no. A lot of the experts in the audience, so I'm
Speaker 102
31:13
not sure we can get an answer to that, Mr. Hammer. I'm sorry. And the reason, if I may, sir. Go ahead. The reason that's important to me is because I don't want any legislation to define what is a corpse being limited by any time frame as it relates to the treatment of that. If you can appreciate where I'm coming from, and if you can or you can help me ease my concern, I'd appreciate that as it relates to this bill.
Speaker 114
31:41
As I sit here right now, I can't. I apologize. I don't know what the definition or if corpse is even defined in the criminal
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
31:52
code. Okay. Thank you. I don't think corpse is defined in the criminal code. I'm seeing some experts back there. They're sure going to hear that that's not
defined in the criminal code. That didn't completely answer your question, Mr. Hammer.
Speaker 123
32:06
Another bill? Any additional questions, Mr. Walker? Yes. Your
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
32:09
concern here apparently is the statute of limitations.
Is that correct? That's correct, sir. And if it were a murder charge, there would be no statute
Speaker 114
32:19
of limitations. On the murder charge, yes. On
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
32:22
the abuse of the corpse charge, there would be. That's what happened in my case. All right. Now, how does this bill address extending the statute of limitations to be coterminous with that of a murder charge in
Speaker 119
32:36
this particular statute? What it does is it makes it a
Speaker 114
32:41
continuing course of conduct under 5.1.109, which means that once the discovery is made,
for example a theft by receiving charge once you discover someone on a stolen property that's when the statute of limitations begins to run so you have three years from the date of that discovery in order to file a charge if you don't after three years then it's barred by the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
33:02
statute of limitations it doesn't make no statute of limitations for abusive corpse well as I understand it this person that you charged apparently we need one to charge the person yes sir did you charge the person with murder I did alright and you lost on that Well, she got convicted of manslaughter.
All right. So you didn't like that? Well, it was a jury, and I respect their decision. I see. Now, continuing course of conduct means something that continues beyond the time that the act occurs, doesn't it? Yes, sir. So this is one of those situations where you really just want to keep from losing next time by the manner in which a jury may respond to your charges. No, sir, I don't believe that's accurate.
Speaker 114
33:50
The effort is to make concealing the corpse an offense and make it a continuing offense. Abuse of a corpse has always been
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:00
an offense. This is an effort to make concealing the corpse an offense. So if a person murders a person and then buries that person under his or her steps, then that's a separate act of concealing. Yes, sir. And that allows you another statute of limitations.
But murder is still murder, isn't
Speaker 119
34:23
it? Murder is still murder. It's another example. That person can murder someone and someone else can conceal the corpse. Thereby you've got two offenders So it's not just always one person That could commit both acts As another example You might find the courts Where you can't determine
Speaker 114
34:52
Exactly if it was murdered Or who murdered it But if you know or find out Who concealed it In a manner offensive to a person with legal sensibilities, you would have a statute to charge them under. All right. Are there other
Speaker 49
35:11
questions from the committee? Representative Shepard, you look like you wanted to
Speaker 128
35:16
say something. All right. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for or against the bill?
Speaker 47
35:22
John redale that regal that's him all right no one else all right yes represent now just because the benefit of everybody else you
Speaker 102
35:47
may not have seen I'm my issue that I was concerned about, I'm satisfied with her
having shown me what she showed in the law book. So I just want everybody around the table to know that my issue's been addressed. Thank you. All
Speaker 47
36:04
right. Representative Gillum. I'm going to do pass. All right. We have a motion. Do pass. Seeing no one else who wishes to speak for or against. Committee. All those who in favor, would you say aye? Aye. Those opposed? All right. The bill goes out. Do pass. Committee members, a couple of things before we adjourn.
Representative Chairman Williams asked if we would expunge the vote by which we took action on 1994 because there's an amendment or something that needs to be done. It's a housekeeping matter. Can we do that? House Bill 1994. All right. All those who would favor, would you say aye? Aye. Thank you. And then the other thing is, he said, if you would, listen out for the call of the chair for us to meet sometime this afternoon.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB2044
HB2191
HB2146
HB2120
SB745
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 47
Speaker 49
Speaker 53
Speaker 54
Lindsay Williams
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 74
Speaker 58
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 102
Speaker 64
Speaker 91
Speaker 108
Speaker 113
Speaker 114
Speaker 123
Speaker 119
Speaker 128