House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1222
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1222”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1045
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1045”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1021
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1021”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1004
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1004”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1010
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1010”
|
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
Unknown speaker
0:00
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
12:00
Thank you.
has to pay these expenses at this time. And what I'm trying to do is to put some standards in place and statute that will try to make certain that we're treating all council the same. And my final
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
12:50
question, Mr. Chair, Is there a set of events that makes this legislation necessary to be presented at this
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
13:01
particular time in history?
The Supreme Court case that was issued this last May where the court ruled that that's what brought this about. there was a question over what the expense or what authority the Public Defender Commission had to pay expenses, and the court, in a unanimous decision, which I think was properly decided, said that the way the statute was written, that the Public Defender Commission was obligated to
pay for expenses of retained counsel. And what I'm trying to do is to bring some clarity to the statute because the court, in their opinion, was very direct in saying that they were looking at the clear and unambiguous wording of the statute in making their decision. I think the court also properly, in my opinion, did not answer a question regarding whether
the state had to offer, make a defendant choose. And so what I'm attempting to do here is to allow that option to remain on how a defendant can choose. And if they can still have the option to choose their own counsel without
having to forfeit the opportunity to have expenses paid. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
Speaker 8
14:29
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Walker.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
14:36
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Edwards, just one quick question for clarification.
I notice here at the bottom of the first page where it discusses the standards set by the commission under this subchapter, those standards are
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
14:56
already in writing, are they not? I believe they are. But, sir, one issue I learned a long time ago, I let other people speak for themselves that have. And Mr. Chairman, I mean, I can get a head nod, but they are. We have some representatives from the commission here.
Those are set in writing, yes. Okay, so
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
15:13
we're not talking about just some arbitrary finding that could be inconsistent on the part of the commission. No, we're not. Those standards will be in writing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Edwards,
just for record's sake, let's see who's nodding their head over there. Deborah Stallings. Deborah Stallings, okay, with the Public Defender Commission? Yes. Thank you, Deborah. Mr. Branscombe, you recognize
Speaker 21
15:37
for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Edwards, I think it's a good bill
Looking at it from a non-lawyer I mean, when I read it, it was pretty easy to understand And now after these questions, I'm a little more confused on it But from a simplistic point If an old boy out here from Marshall That has done a capital offense And he's not happy with the lawyer That's been appointed to him and he can afford to go out and hire somebody in Little Rock, then the state wouldn't be responsible for that bill.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
16:12
Is that right? Well, we're dealing with
indigence. If you have the money, this doesn't apply, but there are circumstances where someone may just have a few dollars that will technically allow them to, you know, they can get a, quote, unquote, a retained counsel, or someone could even be pro bono counsel. You know, that's the opportunity, but we're trying
to keep all the options open here for a defendant. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Branson. Any additional questions of the committee? Any questions? Anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, I recognize Representative Eubanks for a motion. Motion to do pass. That's a proper motion. Motion before the committee is due pass on House Bill 1004. What's the pleasure of the committee? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
Ayes have it. Congratulations, Representative Edwards. Your bill passes. Next on the agenda is House Bill 1021, Representative Lee. I saw her earlier. Oh, there she is. Welcome back, Representative Lee. We have a physical impact study that's attached to this bill, members. It's on your desk. Resident Lee, you're recognized to explain House Bill 1021.
Speaker 30
17:44
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is one of those bills you are not thrilled to bring but is necessary.
Basically, there are actions – I'm trying to think of how I want to say this. Please excuse me. Basically, all this bill is doing is adding a law enforcement officer to, as well as correctional officers, when someone chooses to throw bodily fluids or force someone to come in contact with bodily fluids while they're in a detention facility.
As you know, not just detention officers deal with prisoners. Law enforcement officers also bring people into the prisons. And so basically it's just a bill that adds law enforcement officer. It also, the person committing the crime would not have to throw the bodily fluids. They would just have to force the officer to come in contact with them. we wanted we wanted to make that the bill as you can see it's a slightly
uncomfortable to talk about as you look at the impact statement it can't be determined at this time
to say do you have any questions thank you mrs. Lee any questions from the committee yeah
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:15
I present Walker you recognized for a question thank you chairman I have a the question, oftentimes prisoners are either disabled or semi-able or perhaps sufficiently
incompetent to move and they may be covered with what may be regarded as bodily fluids. So if a policeman finds it necessary to move that person, is that an act that may be imputed to the disabled prisoner? Because the person is necessarily going to have to come into contact with the body of the fluid, he's going to be either bleeding, he's going to be full of either feces, he's
going to be full of something. So does that sit that person in a position of
Speaker 29
20:08
being charged with another crime? My understanding of this
Speaker 30
20:11
is no, and I think that's where common sense prevails. Ms. Tyler, currently, is there a separate facility for handicapped people and they are handled
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
20:23
differently? I'm not talking about handicaps. Pardon me. I'm talking about the person who has had, who's just fallen out, who may not be oriented.
Speaker 30
20:34
Pardon me. Okay. I see what you're saying. Someone who might come in drunk or someone who might just fall? Yeah. Correct. Well, obviously, that's an accident. That's different than someone who's intentionally trying to force their bodily fluids on
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
20:49
someone else. Well, you have here, though, purposely causing. Now, if a person can't move and someone and an officer feels that he or she can move, then common sense may cause a fact finder to determine that that's a purposeful act and therefore impose another punishment.
Speaker 30
21:08
You know, that's entirely possible. I guess I would have to say that someone may construe it that way and push it that far. That's not the intention of my bill, though. MR.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
21:24
Any additional questions, Representative Walker? MR. Well, I wonder how you address that, because you're really talking about affirmative actions here in addition to purposeful acts, aren't you, Representative Lee? Affirmative acts on the part of the person who may be situated, as I have described,
and that person is trying to make sure that the officer comes into contact with his inappropriate bodily fluids. MS. So that it would have
Speaker 30
21:49
to be proven that that was their intention.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
21:52
MR. Yes. Intentionally and purposefully. MS. Correct. MR. Would you have any objection to having intentionally and purposefully be the language instead of simply purposefully? I guess you could say purpose and intent are
Speaker 38
22:08
the same, but sometimes they may not be.
MS. married to a man who writes
Speaker 30
22:15
documents purposefully and intent, those two words have the same meaning. You feel they don't is what I hear you saying. Well, it would seem to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
22:31
to prohibit the action of a person which is intended to harm another person or at least to put the person in some kind of fear.
And that is purposeful, of course, but I think that intent may be a little harder to prove. So... I don't know. I mean, it may not be a big enough distinction to make an issue about, but I think that judges and offices are inclined often to take language like this and liberally construe it
so that almost any conduct is prohibited or proscribed and become criminalized simply because they want it to be
that way. Any additional questions, Mr. Walker? No,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
23:31
sir. Next on the list, Representative Nichols. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This may help Representative Walker Representative Lee, would you look at Line 24, this is
the current law, it has not been amended, but Do you think Line 24 may cover the situation that Representative Walker is talking about? Yes, it would, thank you Why don't you read that
Speaker 30
24:01
so the people out here might know what it says Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the personal hygiene of the certified law enforcement or correctional facility. The person purposefully engages in conduct.
So I felt it was pretty clear. MR. I'm
sorry, Representative Walker, Representative Nichols, do you have any additional questions? MR. No, Mr. Chairman. MR. Let me follow along the list.
Chair
Unverified
24:25
I'll come back to you if you have any questions, Representative Walker. MR. No, I just wanted to say I agree with him. MR. Okay. MR. Any other questions? Representative Hammer? No questions. Any other questions from the
members? Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against the bill?
Seeing none, I recognize Vice Chair Wilkins for a motion. Vice Chair Wilkinson Do pass, Mr. Chairman. There's a motion of do pass before the Committee for House Bill 1021. All those in favor, aye. Aye. No. Ayes. Have it. Representative Lee. House Bill
1021 passes. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee. Representative Lee, let me remind you that since this bill has a fiscal impact attached to it, you need to make
sure that's signed and given to the folks upstairs because it
has to be on the desk 24 hours before we can sit it on
Speaker 54
25:25
the House floor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Penartz, you want to go now? You're recognized for – I'm sorry, wait a minute, is Representative Hutchinson here? I'm
about to skip somebody. No. No? Okay. Well, you're recognized to run House Bill 1222 if you'd like. Thank you. Welcome to House Judiciary.
Speaker 57
25:52
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, Committee members. Let me say it's my pleasure to
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
26:01
be here before you today. I served my first two years on this body, and it was a great learning experience as a freshman, so it's my pleasure to be before this body this morning. I'm presenting House Bill 1222. Basically what this bill does is it's really a correction of the code in order to bring
the code in line with what is in reality. We have three district court judges instead of two, so it's merely adding that language to reflect that we have three. And the last part, the deletion of the language, merely indicates we'll make Sebastian County like all the other district courts where we do not put specific fees with regard to this issue in the code. So we're stripping that out of the code to leave our local and county jurisdictions the
leeway on what they do pay as all the other counties do. So I would be glad to entertain any questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that explanation, Representative Penartz. Any questions of
Representative Penartz? Seeing none, any one in the audience want to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no questions, I recognize Representative Wilkins for a motion. Do pass, Mr. Chairman. That's a proper motion. All those in favor of House Bill 1222, would you signify by saying aye?
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
27:27
Aye. Opposed, no? Mr. Chairman, my thanks to the committee, and, again,
it was my pleasure to be here this morning. Thank you. Congratulations. House Bill 1222 passes. Next on our agenda is House Bill 1045. Representative Hutchinson, you're recognized to
present House Bill 1045, and I believe there's a physical impact study in your package, members. MS. Thank
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
27:55
you, Mr. Chairman. We're having a big vote across the hall in education, and I was instructed to come over
here and return as quickly as possible before they vote on the issue. So I appreciate you letting me perhaps come out of order. Good morning, committee members. With your copy of my bill, you'll find a letter from Circuit Court Judge William Story describing a situation in our county. Mr. Owens, while serving in prison, began to file false land claims against those who put him in jail. The victims had to hire attorneys, invest money and time trying to clear their name
and to reclaim their good credit rating. This was a burden to the victim, but since the crime's penalty was only a misdemeanor, it had no impact on Mr. Owens' life, the man who was filing the false claims. And it didn't matter how many times Mr. Owens committed this crime, it was still just a misdemeanor. I have other copies of where this was done. Clearly it was done out of vengeance against those who helped put criminals behind bars.
Clearly we need to change the law to prevent this from becoming a pattern in those seeking revenge. House Bill 1045 accomplishes that change. This will protect all citizens by making the second offense a low-level felony, but it also creates a special category for those who make and enforce the law, filing a false claim against them in this section makes it a Class C felony. The physical impact is minimal. The Arkansas realtors have endorsed the bill, as other in law enforcement.
It's a rather simple bill, but I'll be happy to take
any questions. MR. Thank you for your excellent explanation, Representative Hutchinson. Are there any questions from the committee? Representative Steele,
Chair
Unverified
29:55
you're recognized for a question. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know why I've got such
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
30:00
a short microphone here. Representative Hutchinson, have other states taken similar measures to this? Well, we
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
30:06
are one of the few states that has the penalty as a misdemeanor. All the other states have it already as a felony.
Speaker 16
30:14
Thank you. Nothing further, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Still. Mr. Walker,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
30:21
you recognize? I don't know if this is a real concern, but
I was curious to – with your use of the language. You said the Arkansas Realtors as well as other law
enforcement officers. I didn't know that the Arkansas Realtors
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
30:35
were law enforcement officers. Oh. Well, I thought the AG was going to have someone here, so.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
30:40
No, I just want to make sure that we don't ever embrace the notion that the Arkansas
Realtors are law enforcement agency. That's all. But no, nothing else. Correction noted. Thank you. Thank
you for that correction, Representative Walker. Anyone else from the audience – from the committee have questions? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the bill? What's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Rice, you're recognized for a motion. The motion do pass, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Rice. The proper motion. Representative Rice has made a motion for a passage of House Bill 1045.
All those in favor of passing 1045 say aye. All those opposed, no. Congratulations, Representative
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
31:25
Hutchinson. Appreciate it. Thank you. House Bill
1045 passes. I see Representative Woods here. Representative Woods, you're here for House Bill 1010.
Is that correct? Members, just for your knowledge here, Representative Woods is going to send House Bill 1011 to the deferred list, and we are going to hold on House Bill 10-09 and House Bill 10-15 for
further information from Representative Woods. Representative Woods, you're recognized
Chair
Unverified
31:59
to present House Bill 10-10. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman and committee members. I just wanted to say I won't be running the divorce decree bill, so half the room can leave now and and but that was brought to me by a constituent so he's happy that I tried so
Chair
Unverified
32:29
he's getting over it but in the other bills that I had the other day there's some updates and amendments on those and I'll be bringing those back to committee on Tuesday so but right now I was like to discuss House bill 1010 and And this is something that's new to me, and I've had several city councilmen, my mayor and our city attorney, approach me about just the growing trend of graffiti and the cost of removing it.
And I'm aware that there are codes or laws on the books in juvenile courts. But I was asked to run this to amend a civil code and just to basically just inject, you know, a couple words, damage or deface, which really narrows it down to graffiti. I can just give you a couple cases. In the district I represent, I have Johnson, Tawny Town, and Springdale, and it's a wonderful district. And I've really enjoyed my time in the legislature, but there's just certain cases where we have graffiti problems where removing a graffiti could range anywhere from $250 to $1,000, sometimes $2,000.
And it's increasing, and recently we've had to go out and buy equipment and purchase a new truck or vehicle with new equipment, and it's cost quite a bit of money. and we actually have somebody on full-time salary removing graffiti full-time. So that's cost us quite a bit of money. We're talking about a salary, a vehicle, equipment, and then just the cost for each removal. So it's added up to be quite a bit, and we're looking just to somehow get back some of the funds that we're losing that we're not, as a city,
you know, it's just kind of hard to budget for things that you can't get inside the mind of kids and predict what problems you're going to have in the community sometimes with this. And this is just a way to have accountability and also to kind of gain back some of that revenue so we don't have to cut services. And also it's either take it out on the taxpayer or take it out on those that are responsible. And unfortunately, you know, sometimes the parents, we need to hold them accountable. So I'm done for the introduction.
I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Representative Woods. Members, I have Representative Rogers
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
35:06
first for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Woods, I do agree with your bill and find it very offensive with the use of the way this happens around it with public and private property as well. However, I do have a question about the use of parents, and I perhaps think that it may be legal guardian might be a better term to be used. Wouldn't you agree?
Chair
Unverified
35:32
So, yes, I would agree. We could do that. That's a good point. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Well, Mr. Woods, we can't take an amendment, a verbal amendment. We can go real slow if you want to try to get that written up. Or you want us to lay this on the table and we can come back
Chair
Unverified
35:57
and have this on Tuesday? That's perfectly fine. And, you know, I'm curious to see what other amendments might spawn up, too.
Speaker 86
36:05
Sure, that's fine. Well, I'll tell you what, I'd
rather not go through the bill if we're going to amend it. And so if someone has suggested amendments for Mr. Woods, I suggest you take that up with him when we're not in committee. Since he is going to amend this bill, I think
we probably should not continue to talk about it at this point in time.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
36:35
I'd like for him to explain before he leaves why this could not simply be a municipal ordinance. I mean, why does it have to be – why does everything have to be a state law when – Representative Walker,
I appreciate that question, but I'm going to not recognize that because we'll just get into discussion of this bill. And if he's going to amend it and bring it back, you'll have proper time to ask that question or even maybe ask it before he brings it back. It is your decision to amend the bill, correct, Representative Woods? That is correct. Okay, well, that being the case,
I'm going to entertain a motion to lay this on the table, meaning it will
Chair
Unverified
37:11
come back to the same point. You know, I don't know what the ramifications of doing that are, and I'll probably have to get with some of the experts in the field to see what that would do. and how that might domino. No, you know, actually what we should do
is probably let you do a member's own amendment. It'll get it back here quicker, especially laying on the table. You can do a member's own and bring it back on Thursday. Sure. I
Speaker 85
37:31
would just like to give Representative Rogers before the end of the day would be good.
So thank you. That'd be fine, members. I apologize, but when we have an agreed upon amendment like that, we really don't want to continue to discuss the bill. I don't see Representative Lovell here for his bill. Seeing no other business before this committee, this committee stands adjourned. Thank you.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1004
HB1021
HB1222
HB1045
HB1010
Adjournment
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 9
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Speaker 21
Speaker 30
Speaker 31
Speaker 29
Speaker 38
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 54
Speaker 57
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
Speaker 16
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 75
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 86
Speaker 85