►
From YouTube: 3/10/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
E
E
C
F
D
A
Here
everybody
is
present.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
being
on
time
this
morning
and
welcome
to
members
of
the
committee
welcome
to
those
joining
us
on
zoom
and
welcome
to
members
of
the
public
who
may
be
watching
either
on
the
legislature's
website
or
on
the
legislature's
youtube
channel.
A
We
have
now
arrived
at
day
38
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature.
Before
we
get
started
just
a
few
housekeeping
rules.
These
will
sound
familiar
to
many
of
you,
but
just
in
case
we
have
new
people
participating.
I
want
to
make
sure
we
get
the
lay
of
the
land
here
number
one
if
you're
on
the
zoom,
if
you
could
please
mute
when
you're,
not
speaking,
that'll
help
with
the
audio
feedback
and
for
our
presenters
on
today's
bill.
A
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy,
and
this
may
in
fact
be
one
of
those
bills
where
there
are
strong
disagreements
on
pieces
of
it.
That's
perfectly
fine,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
of
one
another
of
the
legislative
process
and,
most
importantly,
of
our
legislative
staff.
A
Finally,
many
members
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
the
meeting,
including
laptops,
desktops
extra
monitors,
ipads
phones
trying
to
navigate
this
virtual
world,
so
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention.
If
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
at
any
point
during
this
morning's
hearing
with
those
housekeeping
matters
behind
us,
we
will
move
on
to
our
agenda
members.
As
you
can
see,
we
just
have
one
bill
on
the
agenda
today.
A
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
up
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
42
assembly,
but
42
makes
various
changes
relating
to
criminal
law
and
criminal
procedure
and
before
I
hand
the
presentation
over
I'll,
let
members
know-
and
members
of
the
public
know
as
well-
that
there
is
a
proposed
amendment
brought
by
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
members.
You
should
receive
that
I
believe
a
couple
days
ago,
but
it
is
on
nellis.
It
can
be
accessed
there
for
members
of
the
committee
and
members
of
the
public.
A
So
we
have
a
few
folks
with
us
on
the
zoom
today
to
present,
and
I
think
our
main
presenters
are
from
the
city
of
henderson.
They
are
the
sponsor
of
assembly
bill
42.
So
I
will
welcome
miss
rourke
and
mr
schiffel
shifalakwa
from
the
city
of
henderson
to
present
the
bill,
and
I
know
we
also
have
judge
glassen
on
with
us,
as
well
as
miss
souza
yamas
from
the
department
of
public
safety
records
division.
A
G
Morning,
thank
you,
cherry
yeager.
Thank
you
vice
chair
wynn,
for
allowing
us
to
present
to
you
ab42.
G
My
name
is
nicole
rourke
n-I-c-o-l-e
last
name
r-o-u-r-k-e
and
I'm
representing
the
city
of
henderson
today,
along
with
my
colleague
mark
skipalaqua,
first
we'd
like
to
thank
you,
chair,
yeager,
vice
chair
wynn,
and
all
the
time
that
you've
spent
with
us
on
this
bill
and
all
the
members
for
meeting
with
us
to.
Let
us
explain
a
relatively
complex
process
bill,
and
so
we
appreciate
all
of
your
time
and
effort
and
we'll
have
a
presentation
today,
we'll
walk
you
through
the
bill
as
well
as
walking
through
the
amendment.
H
There
was
never
a
constitutional
right
to
a
jury
trial
for
a
misdemeanor
in
the
state
of
nevada.
Now,
on
average,
the
henderson
city,
attorney's
office,
prosecutes
and
files
about
a
thousand
cases
of
battery
domestic
violence
every
year
in
the
henderson
municipal
court.
That's
a
thousand
victims
of
abuse,
and
we
take
a
lot
of
pride
in
that
we
work
hard
on
them
and
we
try
to
represent
the
voice
of
the
victim
and
justice
in
these
courtrooms
and
try
to
provide
the
victim
with
a
level
of
safety
and
security
moving
forward.
H
H
H
H
That's
our
gun,
prohibition
law
in
the
state
of
nevada.
It
lists
various
folks
who
are
not
allowed
to
possess
firearms,
felons,
the
mentally
ill,
those
convicting
of
stalking,
extended,
protected
orders,
fugitives
from
justice
and
the
legislature
added
domestic
violence,
misdemeanor
domestic
violence,
so
our
supreme
court
said
well,
while
we
said
in
2014,
this
didn't
get
you
a
jury
trial.
Now
it
does
now.
It
rises
to
the
level
of
a
serious
offense
under
the
sixth
amendment,
because
your
second
amendment
rights
are
affected
and
that
noted
the
legislature's
intention
to
make
this
a
serious
offense.
H
H
As
you
know,
typically,
cities
get
their
power,
their
authorities
from
either
a
state
statute,
a
charter,
a
constitution.
Well,
none
of
those
expressly
say
that
that
the
municipal
court
can
comply.
Although
anderson
was
a
supreme
court
case,
it
was
constitutionally
based
and
it
was
a
municipal
court
case.
H
Do
we
have
time
to
make
some
infrastructure
changes?
There
are
not
jury
boxes
by
and
large,
in
our
municipal
courts
throughout
the
state,
and
there's
good
reason
for
that,
and
that's
because
there
was
never
any
statutory
or
constitutional
right
to
a
jury
trial,
so
they're
not
really
built
for
juries.
H
H
H
H
Well,
my
argument
has
been
well
that's
exactly
what
we
had
in
anderson,
a
constitutional
rule
that
you
must
comply
with
a
due
process
right.
That
argument
has
been
successful
throughout
the
district
courts.
That
we've
argued
this
in
front
of
these
are
three
cases
here
in
the
8th
judicial
district
court,
two
henderson
cases
from
the
henderson
municipal
court
and
one
from
the
las
vegas
municipal
court,
three
different
judges,
three
different
district
court
departments,
but
the
same
ruling
throughout.
H
H
While
I
expect
the
supreme
court
to
take
this
up,
there
has
been
no
ruling
yet,
and
I
would
not
expect
a
ruling
during
your
legislative
session
due
to
the
briefing
schedules,
but
clearly
we
believe
we
can,
but
that
hasn't
stopped
challenges.
We've
got.
We
have
gotten
challenge
after
challenge,
after
challenge
to
our
authority,
to
be
able
to
provide
a
jury
and
that's
caused
problems,
because
we
need
to
make
the
investment
to
be
able
to
accomplish
this,
and
a
lot
of
these
challenges
have
made
that
very
difficult.
H
H
H
H
H
H
Why
would
this
help
us?
Well,
it
only
helped
us
temporarily,
but
the
law
is
that
a
ordinance
does
not
prohibit
somebody
from
having
a
firearm
and
therefore
there's
no
accompanying
jury
trial
right.
So
this
allowed
us
to
continue
to
prosecute
it
allowed
us
to
continue
to
fight
for
victims,
but
it
was
temporary
in
nature.
It
was
something
where
we
always
wanted
to
get
to
a
point
where
we
in
front
of
this
body.
H
So
what
is
this
bill?
Well
one?
It
would
provide
clear
language
that
the
municipalities
can
comply
with
the
anderson
decision.
We
have
the
discretion
to
be
able
to
conduct
the
jury
trials.
To
be
clear.
This
is
permissive.
It
doesn't
force
a
city
to
go
ahead
and
start
constructing
and
and
hiring
personnel.
H
We
certainly
would
in
our
city
due
to
the
volume
of
cases
we
had,
but
perhaps
a
very
small
city
would
want
their
maybe
county
district
attorney
to
handle
instead,
but
would
provide
that
it
would
provide
the
rules
for
the
municipalities.
Chapter
175
is
our
jury
trial
rules
in
the
state
of
nevada.
It
would
insert
us
in
there
so
we
know
exactly
what
rules
we're
following
so
we're
doing
this
consistently
throughout
the
state,
and
it
would
also
provide
some
clarity
on
the
federal
definition
of
domestic
violence.
H
So
if
I
could
walk
you
through
the
bill,
I
would
appreciate
it
section
one.
What
that
says
is
if
there
is
a
felony
and
a
misdemeanor
domestic
violence
charged
together
that
you
would
do
one
jury
trial,
not
two.
We
don't
want
victims
of
violent
crime
to
have
to
testify
more
than
they
absolutely
need
to.
H
Two
of
the
bill
cleans
up
some
language
regarding
whether
a
defendant
needs
to
ask
for
a
jury
trial,
whether
he
or
she
needs
to
request
a
jury.
Trump
demand
a
jury
trial.
H
There
is
a
section
in
there
that
refers
to
that.
That's
a
little
bit
more
with
some
civil
law
and
we're
so
we're
saying.
If
you
have
a
constitutional
right
to
a
jury
trial,
you
don't
have
to
file
a
demand
anymore.
In
other
words,
if
your
second
amendment
rights
are
affected,
then
you
have
that
right
to
a
jury
trial.
You
don't
have
to
ask
the
court,
it
would
be
automatic
just
like
how
a
felony
offense
would
be
section.
Three
adds
a
municipal
court
to
the
jury
size
of
that's
already
present
in
the
nrs.
H
Sections
four
and
five
just
clean
up
some
language
regarding
instead
of
district
attorney
or
state
now
we'll
have
city
attorneys
prosecuting
this
offense,
so
it's
just
gonna
stay
prosecuting
and
turning
just
a
little
more
generalized
section,
six
expands
those
who
can
provide
you
have
to
provide
a
jury
deliberation
room
for
a
jury.
As
you
know,
the
statue
right
now
says
that's
the
duty
of
the
sheriff
of
the
county,
we're
just
adding
chief
of
police,
practically,
that's,
usually
just
done
by
somebody
in
the
courthouse
building.
H
We
don't
have
them
over
the
police
department,
but
that
is
how
the
law
reads.
Right
now
and
section
7
permits
the
municipal
courts
to
use
sound
reporting
equipment
to
record
the
jury
trials
as
long
as
they're
courts
of
record,
so
just
some
procedure,
sections
8,
14
and
15..
These
are
the
municipality
sections
of
our
nrs
nrs5
deals
with
municipal
courts.
H
266
are
those
cities
that
are
incorporated
under
the
general
laws
of
our
state
and
268
is
the
ones
that
are
incorporated
under
charters
or
incorporated
throughout
our
state,
and
it's
consistent
throughout
simply
says
that
a
municipality
can
comply
with
the
constitution
and
allow
a
jury
trial.
It's
just
the
authority
of
sections
section,
six
deals
with
who
we
send
the
jury
summons
to
based
on
population.
H
But
if
you
don't
you
don't
have
a
significant
population
in
your
in
your
city,
you
could
send
it
counting
wide
so
again,
you're
not
sending
summonses
out
to
the
same
people
over
and
over
again
in
a
smaller
area,
and
also
the
city
can
contract
with
another
court's
jury.
Commissioner
for
services,
if
that
person
would
enter
into
a
contract
section
10
permits
the
chief
of
police
to
serve
summonses
again.
It
says
the
sheriff
does
that
in
in
that
section,
we're
just
adding
chief
of
police.
H
That's
consistent
with
cities
functionally,
as
you
know,
a
jury,
commissioner,
is
the
one
that
mailed
these
out.
It
always
has
the
effect
of
law
enforcement,
so
people
don't
they
know
where
their
jury
summons
is,
but
just
adding
some
city
terms
into
that.
H
For
jurors,
as
you
know,
you
get
paid
to
be
a
jury,
a
juror,
it's
40
bucks
a
day.
Nobody
gets
rich
doing
this,
but
we
would
pay
at
the
same.
The
same
rate.
That's
in
the
statute
and
section
16
just
has
some
basic
conforming
language
regarding
jury,
selection,.
H
Section
12
now
245
is
our
battery
domestic
violence
law
in
conjunction
with
section
3301010118,
and
that
just
really
codifies
the
anderson
decision
and
what
it
says
in
there
is
if
you're
charged
with
this
law
with
this
offense
and
your
gun
rights
are
affected.
You're
entitled
to
a
jury
trial
for
this
offense.
H
Section
13
amends
the
definition
of
202
360
clarifies
language
to
ensure
we're
dealing
with
convictions
from
ours
and
other
jurisdictions
that
includes
same
or
substantially
similar
conduct
convictions
that
is
consistent
with
other
parts
of
202
360,
including
stalking
other
places,
call
battery
domestic
violence,
perhaps
by
a
different
name.
They
call
it
domestic
battery
or
things
like
that.
As
long
as
the
elements
are
the
same
it
would,
it
would
be
equivalent
as
well
as
stalking
is
the
same
in
the
statute.
H
We
do
have
a
few
amendments.
We've
been
working
with
a
very
large
group
to
try
to
accomplish
this.
No
doubt
this
type
of
an
undertaking
does
affect
a
lot
of
people,
cities,
counties,
prosecutors,
defense,
attorneys,
courts,
victim
advocacy,
key
groups,
and
so
we've
been
reaching
out
to
too
many
and
having
a
lot
of
discussions.
So
we
make
sure
that
this
works
for
everybody
that
can
work
for
going
forward.
H
So
section
three
talks
about
how
many
jurors
you
need
for
misdemeanor
jury
trial.
It
is
in
the
law
right
now
that
says
six
we're
just
saying
a
minimum
of
six
little
effects,
flexibility
there
in
case
a
court
ever
ruled
that
you
needed
more
jury
jurors
for
this
type
of
a
process,
but
six
would
be
in
goal
section.
Four.
We
worked
on
with
some
las
vegas
justice
court
judges
who
have
heard
a
couple
of
these
jury
trials
since
anderson
came
into
effect.
H
When
you
have
a
six-person
jury
and
you
have
four
preemptory
challenges,
it
gets
to
be
tough
to
pick
a
jury
because
you're
kicking
so
many
people,
four
on
each
side,
so
you
get
four
on
each
side.
The
amendment
would
be
for
a
felony
or
a
gross
misdemeanor
that
would
remain
the
same
to
each
side
for
a
misdemeanor
keep
in
mind.
You'll
always
get
an
extra
strike
for
the
alternature
section.
Six
and
ten
just
insert
the
word
chief
marshall.
H
H
H
So
we
wanted
to
be
clear
that
we're
talking
about
battery
domestic
violence
and
it
must
be
that
effects
battery
domestic
violence.
That's
what
anderson
talked
about.
That's
the
offense
that
someone
would
be
a
private,
prohibited
possessor
and
that's
the
offense.
Somebody
would
get
a
jury
trial
for
not
other
offenses
and
we
also
talked
about
who
would
be
against
the
person's
spouse
or
former
spouse.
H
That's
the
same.
There's
no
changes
there
to
the
the
current
definition
of
the
federal
law
dating
relationship
as
defined
in
nevada
law.
That
is,
there
is
a
definition
of
that,
so
that
has
been
on
the
books
and
tested
if
the
defendant,
the
victim,
had
a
child
in
common.
That's
also
the
same
as
the
federal
definition
or
the
child
parent
relationship
going
either
way.
H
The
reason
why
we
need
to
change
this
definition
is
because
of
the
ambiguity
and
remember
with
anderson.
You
only
get
the
jury
trial
right.
If
upon
conviction,
the
person
would
be
prohibited
from
having
a
firearm,
it
wouldn't
be
for
every
offense.
That's
where
the
federal
definition
of
domestic
violence
hasn't
really
worked
for
us
or
for
anyone.
H
It
is
not
our
intent
to
include
folks
charged
with
simple
battery
or
simple
assault
as
a
prosecutor.
Sometimes
you
use
discretion
on
most
cases
of
not
charging
somebody
with
our
domestic
violence
law,
perhaps
due
to
the
severity
of
the
incident
or
what
they're
undertook
as
far
as
counseling
on
their
own.
Maybe
you
don't
think
those
penalties
are
needed,
and
so
you
charge
them
with
a
lesser
offense,
but
we
don't
want.
H
H
H
Well,
there's
some
case
law
on
that
they
talk
about,
usually
it's
cohabitating
for
a
period
of
time,
perhaps
sharing
expenses,
expectations
of
monogamy,
so
something
more
akin
to
a
spousal
relationship,
certainly
something
that's
gone
on
more
of
a
long-term
relationship
or
again
living
together
for
a
decent
period
of
time.
So
that
would
be
similarly
situated.
H
H
So
that's
certainly
certainly
a
policy
issue
and
we
think
should
be
changed,
but
also
we
need
to
remember.
Our
nevada
law
is
broader
than
the
federal
law,
and
so
a
dating
relationship
qualifies
as
a
domestic
battery
in
the
state
of
nevada.
H
So
here's
where
the
issue
comes
in,
we
need
to
know
who
to
provide
this
jury
trial
to,
and
we
need
to
know
that
from
the
gottago.
We
need
to
know
that
from
the
arraignment,
when
somebody
pleads
not
guilty
to
an
offense,
so
we
can
make
sure
we
give
them
whatever
process
is
due
to
them,
and
the
federal
definition
doesn't
do
that.
Here's!
Why?
H
When
a
police
officer
arrests,
somebody
for
domestic
violence,
they're
dealing
with
a
very
volatile
situation,
they're
trying
to
calm
people
down,
they
may
be
trying
to
attend
to
injuries
and
they're
going
to
learn
if
they
were
in
a
relationship.
Yes,
we've
been
dating
for
six
months,
but
they're
not
going
to
know
all
of
those
factors
about
whether
or
not
this
is
akin
to
a
spousal
relationship,
they're
going
to
arrest
for
domestic
violence
appropriately.
H
So
under
our
law,
I
don't
know
how
we're
going
to
determine
if
we
leave
the
federal
law
as
our
definition
in
the
state
of
nevada,
how
we're
going
to
determine
who's
entitled
to
the
jury
trial
and
who
is
it
because
remember,
they're
really
tied
to
one
another
in
a
sense,
you
don't
get
the
jury
trial
unless
the
second
amendment
rights
are
violated.
So
we
need
to
know
who
is
in
who
is
out
and
we
need
to
know
that
from
the
get-go
and
that's
the
problem
with
the
federal
definition,
one.
H
It's
encapsulating
crimes
outside
of
anderson,
that's
how
it's
been
interpreted
by
our
u.s
supreme
court
and
two
we're
excluding
some
dating
relationships.
But
that
being
said,
we
don't
know
where
the
line
is
last
part
is
the
federal
definition
can
always
change.
As
you
know,
congress
can
always
change
that.
If
we
defer
to
their
definition,
we
could
wind
up
something
that
maybe
we're
not
happy
with
the
last
event.
H
So
that
was
the
reason
for
that
amendment
to
provide
some
clarity
of
who
we're
providing
this
right
to
and
lastly,
we
had
an
amendment
this
was
requested
by,
I
believe
judge
last
was
on
the
phone
or
on
the
zoom
call,
and
some
of
the
other
judges
in
some
of
the
smaller
townships
and
there's
something
akin
to
what
we
did
with
the
cities.
If
you're
in
a
smaller
township,
you
could
send
your
jury
summons
as
county-wide.
H
If
you
don't
have
a
population
base
to
release
support,
the
jury
submits
is
continuing
to
go
to
the
same
people.
H
So
I
wanted
to
thank,
you
certainly
stand
open
for
any
questions,
but
this
bill
does
represent
how
we
can
move
forward
with
handling
domestic
violence
in
our
court
system
in
our
state.
A
I
I
This
amendment's
somewhat
necessary
for
some
of
our
outlying
rural
townships.
It
might
be
in
a
county
with
a
larger
population
such
as
douglas
county
or
washoe
county,
specifically,
the
tahoe
justice
court,
the
incline
village,
justice
court,
where
we're
going
to
be
going
back
to
a
very,
very
small
pool
of
jurors
in
these
jurisdictions,
where
we
might
have
a
high
population
of
tourists
and
guests,
but
not
a
large
population
for
jury
pools.
The
current
law
anticipates
this,
for
example,
in
clark
county
where
in
say,
mesquite
or
laughlin.
I
Those
judges
can
draw
county-wide.
We
don't
have
that
same
ability
in
counties
such
as
elko
excuse
me,
elko
county
with
the
carlin
township
or
the
wells
township,
and
then
again
douglas
county
and
washoe
county.
This
allows
a
net
to
be
thrown
so
we're
not
pulling
the
same
people
in
ridiculously
often
I
have
six
jury
trials
on
hold
and
a
population
in
my
township
of
under
2
000
people.
I
think
this
is
a
a
necessary
amendment.
I
A
A
So
you
know
you
indicated
that
the
original
language
as
it
exists
now
is
it
refers
back
to
the
federal
statute,
that's
how
it
exists
currently
in
law
and
then
the
original
bill
ab42
was
going
to
simply
reference
our
state
domestic
violence
law,
but
then,
in
the
amendment,
what
we
essentially
have
is
is
a
carve
out
to
say
well
we're
not
going
to
include
all
of
what
is
domestic
violence
in
the
state
of
nevada,
but
we're
going
to
specify
which
parts
of
the
domestic
violence
statute
should
be
included
in
the
prohibited
person
statute,
and
I
just
wondered
if
you
could
kind
of
walk
me
through
the
thought
process.
H
Of
course,
mark
skifalaqua,
as
you
know,
in
our
nevada
law,
really
any
relationship
by
blood
or
marriage
would
qualify
as
a
domestic
relationship
as
far
as
a
domestic
violence
charge,
and
so
we
were
trying
to
balance
a
few
things.
Understanding
that
the
second
amendment
is
a
big
deal.
It
is
a
big
deal
to
take
away.
We
want
to
make
sure
we're
targeted
as
much
as
we
can.
H
We
know
that
folks
who
are
abusers,
who
have
access
to
firearms
are
more
dangerous
to
their
victims,
and
so
we
were
looking
at
what
are
the
relationships
where
we
see
the
highest
level
of
violence
and
that's
why
we
try
to
target
these.
There
may
be
very
good
reasons
why
we
incorporate
all
relationships
by
blood
and
marriage
in
our
domestic
violence
laws,
but
as
far
as
where
we
see
the
highest
level
of
violence,
it
would
be
these
relationships.
A
Thank
you
and
then
the
second
question
I
have
maybe
is
a
little
technical
and
I
just
kind
of
want
your
thoughts
on
it,
but
you
know
before
I
get
there,
I
should
add
to
the
committee.
We
did
add
the
anderson
case
as
an
exhibit
on
nellis.
So,
if
anyone's
interested
in
reading
the
court
opinion,
it
is
up
there
now,
it's
not
terribly
long.
So
it's
it's
relatively
easy
to
get
through.
A
So
the
next
question
that
I
had
for
steve
henderson
is
this.
So
if
we
have
somebody
who
is
already
a
prohibited
person,
let's
say
we
have
somebody
who's
convicted
of
a
felony.
So
under
our
laws
they
would
not
be
allowed
to
possess
a
firearm
if
they
are
now
charged
with
a
domestic
violence.
Offense
that
would
fit
under
one
of
the
categories
and
your
amendment
in
section
13.
A
H
Mark
skifalco,
that's
a
great
question
that
has
not
been
litigated
yet
and
I
wouldn't
say
the
bill
directly
addresses
that
question.
As
you
know,
the
the
reasoning
in
anderson
was,
if
you're
going
to
lose
your
second.
H
H
H
A
Thank
you
and
yeah.
Yes,
of
course,
the
bill
doesn't
really
speak
that
maybe
we'll
just
have
to
get
some
further
guidance
from
our
nevada
supreme
court.
At
some
point
on
that.
On
that
particular
question,
I
don't
doubt
that
it'll
be
litigated,
probably
in
some
fashion.
A
So
thank
you
for
that,
and
I
know
we
have
a
number
of
questions
members
if
you
could
maybe
just
raise
your
hand
in
front
of
your
screen-
and
let
me
know
if
you
have
a
question
and
I'm
gonna
put
a
list
together
here
of
who
I
see
with
hands
raised
so
far
okay.
A
So
this
is
the
list
so
far
and
then
we'll
I'm
sure
we'll
have
more
questions,
but
we're
going
to
start
with
vice
chair
win,
then
we're
going
to
go
to
assemblywoman,
kasama,
assemblyman,
wheeler,
assemblyman,
o'neill
and
assemblywomanhansen
and
we'll
take
it
from
there.
So
vice
chair
the
floor
is
yours.
A
E
You
rochelle
wynn
for
the
record,
thank
you
guys
for
presenting
this
bill,
and
I
really
do
appreciate
you
guys
over
the
past
probably
year,
we've
been
talking
about
this.
I
know
that
since
the
anderson
decision
came
out
in
the
fall
of
2019,
we've
been
having
some
ongoing
conversations
about
how
we
will
do
this,
so
I'm
going
to
kind
of
start
with
some
of
the
easier
questions
that
are
more
of
the
technical
questions
regarding
like
preemption.
E
H
Mark
skip
lockwood;
yes,
so,
as
you
know,
with
the
12-person
jury
that
you
would
have
for
all
your
felony
offenses
non-life
felony
offenses
each
side
gets
four
preemptory
challenges.
We
simply
if
we're
cutting
the
jury
size
in
half
to
six,
we're
cutting
the
preemptory
challenges
down
by
half
as
well.
So
two,
instead
of
four
and
again
that
was
with
some
consultation
with
the
las
vegas
justice
court.
Judges
just
to
make
the
jury
trial
process
somewhat.
A
More
efficient
and
I'll
just
jump
in
for
one
second,
if
I
could
vice
chair
just
because
we
have
members
on
the
committee
who
are
new
to
the
committee
and
and
perhaps
are
not
attorneys,
I
just
wanted
to
explain
the
difference
between
the
challenges
that
we're
speaking
of
so,
if
any
of
you
watching
court
court
dramas
on
tv,
you
know
if
a
jury,
if
a
juror
potential
juror
has
a
bias
they
can
be
removed
for
cause.
Essentially,
you
can
challenge
that
juror
and
say
well.
A
A
With
some
exceptions,
you
can't
remove
a
juror
based
on
race
or
sex
or
protected
categories,
but
if
you're
just
getting
like
a
bad
feeling
from
a
juror,
you
don't
think
they
like
your
client.
You
can
remove
them.
So
when
we're
talking
about
these
challenges,
the
peremptory
challenges,
those
are
essentially
the
challenges
the
attorneys
can
make
or
the
parties
can
make
without
any
cause
whatsoever.
A
E
Or
at
least
for
the
people
that
didn't
go
to
law
school,
it
could
be
counted
as
a
first
year
of
law,
school
yeah.
So
I
I
appreciate
that.
I
know
that
there
had
been
some
amendments
and
there
were
more
preemptory
challenges.
So
after
your
conversations
with
the
justice
court,
which
actually
started
instituting
misdemeanor
jury
trials
after
the
anderson
anderson
decision
is
that,
where
kind
of
some
of
that
reasoning
came
from
is
their
experiences.
E
E
H
E
H
I
am
familiar
with
the
larger
cities
in
the
in
clark
county
mark
skipalaqua,
so
between
the
three
major
cities
in
clark,
henderson,
north
las
vegas
and
las
vegas.
There's
approximately
7
000
a
year,
and
that's
actually
just
for
reference
more
just
with
those
three
cities
than
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
handles
with
the
public
defender
in
in
the
justice
court.
So
we
actually
have
a
higher
volume
in
the
cities
than
they
actually
do
with
the
county.
E
E
H
H
H
H
That
has
a
large
volume
of
these
cases.
We
would
build
the
apparatus
to
do
this
here,
but
this
may
not
make
sense,
as
you
say,
to
do
this,
perhaps
in
a
very
small
city,
where
there's
four
or
five
a
year
as
opposed
to
a
thousand.
In
that
case,
what
the
prosecutor
could
do
is
refer
those
cases
to
their
county
district
attorney
to
file
at
the
justice
court.
So
this
doesn't
force
the
city
to
do
it
if
it
doesn't
make
sense-
and
it
may
not
make
sense
for
every
city.
E
Thank
you,
and
now
I'm
going
to
kind
of
go
to
the
section
13
that
has
to
do
with
nrs
202.360.,
that
is
kind
of
expanding
and,
like,
I
guess,
not
expanding,
but
specifying
what
counts
as
a
domestic
violence,
conviction
or
what
you
can.
Also
the
prosecutor's
office,
like
a
felony
prosecutor,
could
charge
someone
with
that
felony
possession
of
a
firearm
by
a
prohibited
person.
That's
correct
right!
E
Yes,
what
what
types
of
crimes
under
this
definition
do,
you
think
would
be
excluded
now
that
were
previously
included,
but
now
would
not
be
included
for
purposes
of
a
battery
domestic
violence.
H
Yeah
mark
skiplock,
yes,
with
the
current
definition,
because
of
how
I
mentioned
that
our
supreme
us
supreme
court
has
interpreted
this
any
type
of
a
violent
crime
like
a
battery
assault,
a
coercion
that
has
the
elements
of
force
or
violence,
those
simple
coercion,
a
simple
assault,
a
simple
battery
is
currently
included
under
our
federal
definition
that
we
refer
to
in
our
in
our
state
law.
That
would
not
be
the
case
moving
forward.
We
are
trying
to
just
limit
this
to
battery
constituting
domestic
violence.
E
So
this
would
exclude
like
like
brother-in-law's
or
uncles
or
nephews
or
those
type
of
relationships.
Is
that
correct.
H
E
And
then
this
would
include
people
that
are
not
included
in
that
federal
definition
is
that
correct.
E
Okay
and
was
was
the
intent,
including
that
was
to
capture
kind
of
that
intimate
partner,
violence
that
were
you're
hoping
to
prevent
or
deter
as
a
prosecutor.
H
Mark
skipalaqua,
yes,
it's
twofold:
one
is
more
the
practical
reason
of
trying
to
determine
who
gets
the
jury
trial
and
who
doesn't
from
the
start
of
the
case
and
you're,
not
always
going
to
know
if
that
individual
is
similarly
situated
to
a
spouse
from
a
police
report
or
a
witness
statement.
And
the
second
part
is
that
we
do
see
a
high
level
of
violence
in
intimate
relationships,
but
perhaps
folks
are
not
living
as
spouses
or
are
cohabitating
for
a
long
period
of
time.
E
My
final
question
is,
as
I
know,
in
light
of
the
anderson
decision,
there
was
confusion
amongst
many
of
the
municipal
court
jurisdictions
or
other
jurisdictions
that
just
did
not
have
the
resources.
The
capability
to
conduct
jury
trials
also
did
not
think
they
had
the
authority
under
existing
case
law,
to
do
so
as
well
and
many
of
those
jurisdictions,
including
the
city
of
henderson,
past
ordinances.
E
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
you
guys,
as
a
city,
chose
to
bring
this
to
authorize
it,
because
I
know
at
the
time
there
was
some
concern,
because
the
city
ordinances,
the
argument
was:
oh,
it
doesn't
affect
your
second
amendment
rights
because
we're
not
increasing
penalties,
we're
not
following
the
rest
of
the
state
law
in
federal
law.
In
that
area.
Do
you
see?
Would
you
continue
to
charge
under
that
city
of
henderson
ordinance?
Or
would
you
now
revert
back
to
the
nrs.
H
Mark
skipalaqua,
the
ordinance
was
the
band-aid,
but
it
wasn't
the
cure
to
this
problem.
This
is
the
cure
to
the
problem
and
so
going
forward
vice
chair
either
way
you
would
charge
it.
You
would
be
entitled
to
a
jury
trial.
The
reason
why
I
say
that
is
the
amendment
to
202
360
says
a
violation
of
our
state
law
or
any
jurisdiction
that
has
a
similar
law
and
we
have
a
similar
law
so
either
way
you
would
go
you'd
be
entitled
to
the
jury
trial,
going
forward.
E
A
Thank
you
vice
chair
and
thank
you
for
your
work
on
this
issue.
I
know
you've
had
a
lot
of
conversations
with
municipal
courts
over
the
over
the
interim
to
try
to
get
a
solution
here.
So
you
know
I
was
one
of
those
people
after
the
anderson
decision
came
out.
That
was
calling
for
a
special
session
to
address
this
problem,
and
I
think
perhaps
we
did
the
right
thing.
We
took
a
little
bit
more
time
to
figure
out
what
the
solution
should
be,
rather
than
jump
into
a
special
session
and
vice
chair.
A
B
Thank
you
had
to
find
my
unute
thank
you
chair
for
allowing
me
to
ask
the
question
and
thank
you
for
that
great
presentation
by
the
city
of
henderson.
The
way
you
walk
through
the
sections
and
the
changes
is
probably
one
of
the
best
presentations
I've
seen
for
bills
that
have
come
up,
so
it
really
helped
to
clarify.
B
B
I
guess
my
question
is
that
in
section
13
with
the
federal
definition
and
then
we're
going
to
this,
this
definition,
which
is
more
specific,
but
it
seems
like
it,
also
broadens
it
a
little
bit
with
the
dating
relationships
which
the
federal
doesn't
seem
to
do,
and
then
doesn't
that
increase
your
caseload
and
overburden
the
city,
because
it
seems
like
you're
trying
to
make
this
narrow
so
that
you
can
handle
these
cases.
B
And
unless
I'm
not
understanding
this
correctly,
it
seems
to
me
that
this
would
perhaps
expand
the
caseloads.
And
so
just
I'm
trying
to
understand
that
a
little
bit
better.
H
Mark
skivalakwa
yeah,
that's
a
great
question:
it
expands
and
it
contracts,
and
so
in
the
end
it
may
be
a
wash
you're,
absolutely
right
that
this
will
capture
a
dating
relationship
that
may
not
be
captured
in
their
current
definition
in
the
federal
law.
H
But
going
back
to
that
one
case,
I
cited
we're
also
deleting
some
cases
that
we
may
have
had
to
try
in
front
of
a
jury,
a
simple
battery,
a
simple
assault
because
of
the
way
that
federal
definition
has
been
interpreted.
So
it
expands
on
one
end
and
it
contracts
on
the
other.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
appreciate
it.
I've
looked
at
this
inside
out
right
side
up
upside
down
every
way.
I
can
possibly
look
at
this
thing
and
I
kind
of
like
I
guess,
a
lot
of
this
bill.
I
think
the
first
part
of
the
bill
is
pretty
good,
but
I
do
have
a
a
huge
problem
with
some
of
it
as
well.
That
would
definitely
have
me
voting
against
this
bill
in
its
current
form.
One
of
those
problems
is
that,
under
this
particular
section,
if
we
change
it,
we've
got
people.
You
know.
F
I
think
I
saw
a
thing
on
the
news
last
night,
that
nevada
is
now
fifth
or
sixth
or
seventh
on
people
moving
into
the
state.
Okay,
so
a
lot
of
people
coming
from
other
states.
We
also
obviously
have
the
biggest
tourist
population
anywhere
in
the
world,
and
people
coming
into
this
state,
who
are
either
tourists
who
are
moving
here,
people
who
have
been
law-abiding
citizens
up
until
that
time
when
they
come
in
say
they
made
a
plea
five
years
ago,
ten
years
ago
to
a
misdemeanor
just
to
shut
off
the
case.
F
They
knew
they
wouldn't
lose
our
gun
rights
et
cetera.
So
I'm
wondering
how
many
law
abiding
gun
owners,
through
you
know
no
fault
of
their
own
they've,
already
passed
a
background
check
to
come
in
here,
but
this
is
on
the
books
and
now
all
of
a
sudden
when
they
cross
that
state
line
since
we're
not
using
the
usc
code
anymore,
how
many
of
them
become
felons
for
illegal
possession
of
a
firearm?
Do
we
have
any
numbers
on
that?
And
what
are
we
going
to
do
with
these
people?.
H
That
would
depend,
obviously
if
the
person
was
already
prohibited
under
federal
law,
which
would
apply
to
the
whole
united
states.
Obviously,
if
it
was
a
spousal
battery
in
another
state,
moving
here
isn't
going
to
change
that.
I
guess
if
the
question
is,
if
they
battered
a
girlfriend
in
another
state
and
let's
say
that
wasn't
illegal
there
as
far
as
a
gun,
prohibition,
they
moved
to
nevada
and
it
was
under
this
change.
That's
that
I
understand
the
concern.
H
F
Hey
thank
you,
but
the
way
I
read
this.
Oh
I'm
sorry,
mr
jeremy,
I
continue.
F
Thank
you
the
way
I
read
this.
Anyone
now
who
is
convicted
of
misdemeanor
battery
their
gun
rights
are
taken
away,
and
so,
if
they're
convicted
of
misdemeanor
battery
in
you
know,
tupelo
mississippi,
move
to
nevada
or
just
come
here
for
the
shot
show,
and
we
have
reciprocity
on
a
ccw
whatever,
but
they're
carrying
a
firearm
or
possessing
a
firearm,
then
they
would
be
a
prohibited
person
in
you
know,
as
far
as
carrying
coming
into
the
state
and
it
just
it
seems
like
it
would
really
expand.
Who
is
prohibited.
F
You
know,
due
to
prior
misdemeanor
convictions
for
domestic
battery.
H
Mark
scaplaqua,
the
intent
here
is
just
to
be
clear:
to
limit
the
gun
prohibition
to
battery
constituting
domestic
violence
that
would
have
had
been
charged
that
way
and
convicted.
That
way,
but
I
do
appreciate
the
comment.
F
Okay,
thank
you.
I
see
what
the
intent
is,
but
I
also
see
what
the
law
says
and
I
think
you
know
if
we
pass
this,
we
got
a
whole
lot
of
people
are
going
to
become.
You
know,
prohibited
carriers,
all
of
a.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
I
guess
I'm
channeling
separated
by
yards
and
concrete.
Mr
wheeler's
thought
pattern.
Mr
longwear,
I
appreciate
the
intent
and
the
first
part
of
the
bill,
but
let
me
ask
you
I'm
trying
to
remember
it's
right.
I
want
to
talk
about
retroactivity
of
this
unintended
consequences,
possibly
particularly
in
law
enforcement.
Several
years
ago,
when
the
federal
prohibitors
came
out,
my
agency,
along
with
numerous
other
agencies,
had
to
discharge
police
officers
because
they
weren't
allowed
to
carry
firearms
anymore.
K
K
I'm
looking
at
this
law
does
that
happen
again.
You
were
saying
city
ordinances,
so
an
officer
had
pled
guilty
to
a
battery
as
a
city
ordinance.
He
could
keep
his
job,
but
now
in
retroactivity
he
would
lose
the
job
with
the
passage
of
this,
as
I
was
gonna
say
currently
written,
but
even
with
the
with
your
amendment
in
there,
could
you
respond
to
that?
K
H
Mark
stephen,
it
is
not
our
intent
to
make
this
retroactive.
H
That
was
not
unconstitutional
at
that
point
and
it's
never
been
found
unconstitutional
as
far
as
an
exposed
facto
law.
That
being
said,
that
is
not
our
intent
with
the
bill
here,
and
so,
if
there's
any
potential
mandatory
language
to
make
that
any
clearer
than
it
already
already
is.
You
know
I'd
be
happy
to
consider
that
that
is
not
the
intent
here
or
the
intentions
to
go
forward,
not
backward.
K
K
Help
me
understand.
So
if
this
law
passed
with
the
amendment,
how
about
people
that
had
pled
guilty
thinking
that
they
wouldn't
lose
their
right
to
bear
arms,
could
they
now
ask
for
a
jury
trial
so
they
could
and
do
lose?
Could
they
come
forward
and
ask
for
a
jury,
trial.
H
Mark
scotland,
but
typically
how
retroactivity
works,
is
if
there's
a
new
law
or
if
there's
a
a
new
case
that
comes
out.
It
usually
applies
to
cases
that
are
open,
not
closed,
so
meaning.
If
the
person
was
already
say,
pled
guilty
had
been
sentenced.
Everything
was
over.
I
know
they
wouldn't
be
resurrected
from
the
dead.
In
a
way,
it
would
really
just
apply
to
cases
that
are
that
are
pending,
that
are
opening
that
haven't
been
resolved.
K
I
appreciate
that
I
may
think
of
something
else,
but
for
now
chair,
mr
skipper,
I
appreciate
the
time.
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
o'neil.
We
still
have
some
additional
questions.
We'll
take
assemblywoman
hanson's
question
next.
G
Thank
you
chair
for
the
opportunity
and
thank
you
for
being
here.
My
very
professional
notes,
fed
state
anderson,
it's
a
lot
to
to
take
in
on
a
on
a
morning
meeting,
but
I
appreciate
the
some
of
the
dilemma
that
that
you're
up
against,
but
I
do
have
some
concerns.
I
was
curious
aside
from
henderson,
do
you
have
other
municipalities
that
are
supporting
this
legislation.
H
Mark
savage,
thank
you
for
your
question.
Yes,
I
believe
a
representative
from
the
las
vegas
city
attorney's
office
is
on
on
the
line
to
offer
their
support.
I
believe
the
city
arena
will
be
on
the
line
to
offer
their
support
and
I
believe
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
representing
the
district
attorney's
association
will
be
on
the
phone
offering
their
support.
C
C
Situations
could
you
kind
of
speak
to
us
about
a
couple
things?
One.
Are
there
any
other
places
in
the
united
states
and
someone
actually
mentioned
possibly
mississippi
where,
if
someone
is
convicted,
they
lose
their
right
to
bear
arms
if
they
are
convicted
of
a
domestic
violence
situation,
can
you
confirm
that
or
can
you
just
at
least
give
us
a
small
list
of
other
places
where
this
is
currently
in
law?
H
First,
blog,
yes,
of
course,
so
throughout
the
country
in
the
federal
law
applies
to
everybody.
So
if
there
was
a
misdemeanor
crime
of
domestic
violence
between
spouses,
former
spouses
child
in
common
or
similarly
situated
to
those
relationships,
people
would
be
prohibited
throughout
many
states,
though,
as
you
mentioned,
go
further
and
provide
additional
protections
that
are
not
there.
Above
and
beyond
the
the
federal
definition.
H
C
I
think
it
would
be
important
if
you
list
a
few
of
those
so
that
people
can
see
that
we
are
not
extraordinary
in
in
this
in
this
situation,
and
then
I
will
have
a
follow-up.
Thank
you,
of
course,.
H
C
Thank
you
for
that.
Charmer
summers:
armstrong
assembly
district.
Six
for
the
record.
I
keep
forgetting.
J
C
Say
that
this
is
your
space
and
you
understand
from
a
prosecutorial
perspective,
this
this
area
much
better
than
those
of
us
who
are
not
trying
to
go
to
law
school
sitting
on
this
committee
and
just
from
a
civilian
perspective
when
you
see
folks
who
are
are
involved
in
domestic
violence,
do
you
know
any
of
the
statistics
about
possible
death
statistics
or
what
are
the
things
that
you
are
are
seeing
on
the
other
side
of
this
issue
when
guns
are
in
play
when
we
are
talking
about
domestic
violence?
H
Thank
you
for
the
questions
and
mark
skipalaqua.
Yes,
I
believe
nevada
ranks
in
the
top
five
throughout
the
country
of
the
number
of
domestic
related
homicides,
and
certainly
those
the
vast
majority
are
by
by
gun
violence.
So
we're
we're
one
of
the
worst
throughout
the
country.
H
The
states
that
have
gone
further
than
the
federal
law
have
seen
a
16
reduction
in
their
gun,
violence
or
gun
homicides
between
domestic
people
in
domestic
relationships.
That's
another
reason:
we
see
it's
important
to
be
clear,
not
everybody,
who's
charged
with
battery
domestic
violence
is
going
to.
You
know,
kill
somebody
or
anything
like
that.
That's
just
where
experience
comes
in
and
and
trying
to
reach
out
to
victims
early
to
get
the
background.
H
Was
this
a
one-time
thing
where
people
were
just
drinking
too
much
and
things
got
out
of
hand,
and
maybe
some
counseling
is
okay
going
forward
and
maybe
that
folk
that
individual
doesn't
need
to
be
a
prohibited
person.
But
we
do
see
the
other
side
of
that
penny
as
well,
and
that's
folks
who
are
in
a
consistent
cycle
of
violence
and
can't
get
out
and
things
are
ratcheting
up.
L
G
G
H
Mark
stevlato
and
that's
a
valid
concern.
You
know
in
our
state
at
one
point,
we
enacted
the
law
that,
if
you're
a
felon,
you
can't
have
a
gun
right
and
somebody
was
prosecuted
later
on.
So
somebody
wasn't,
you
know
prohibited,
and
then
they
were
the
next
day
that
doesn't
violate
the
constitution
to
prosecute
that
person
in
that
manner.
But
that's
just
really
not
the
intent
of
the
bill
and
that's
why
I
mentioned.
I
certainly
am
open
to
any
a
mandatory
language
to
make
sure
that
that
wouldn't
be
the
case
here.
A
G
Thank
you
sharon.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation,
my
question,
it's
probably
not
for
the
presenters.
G
I
don't
think
you
have
this
information,
but
I
understand
mr
jones
is
on
the
phone
for
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office,
and
I'm
wondering
mr
jones,
if
you
can,
I
don't
know
if
you're
gonna
have
this
information
currently,
but
if
you
can
get
for
us
information
about
how
the
anderson
case
has
affected
other
courts
in
clark
county,
so,
for
instance,
I
know
that,
with
some
of
my
domestic
cases,
the
custody
case
has
been
on
hold
since
anderson,
because
there
was
a
dv
allegation
in
henderson
we're
waiting
for
that
trial,
so
that
case
has
kind
of
lingered
for
the
domestic
situation
for
for
more
than
a
year
now
well
more
than
a
year.
G
So
can
you
please
just
kind
of
get
us
some
general
information
about
that?
I'm
not
exactly
sure
if
that
would
if
this
is
affecting
any
other
civil
cases,
but
any
place
where
you
could
tell
us
how
clark
county
is
affected.
I'd
appreciate
that.
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
cohen,
and
I
do
believe
we'll
have
mr
jones
on
the
phone
at
some
point
in
this
meeting.
So,
mr
jones,
if
you're
out
there
and
you're
listening,
if,
if
you're
able
to
address
that
in
your
testimony,
that
would
be
most
welcome
and
if
not,
if
you
could
get
that
information
for
us
I'll,
go
back
to
vice
chairwin
for
a
question.
E
Thank
you.
It's
me
again.
I
I
just
have
a
couple
of
questions
about
subsection.
Four
of
that
expanded
or
kind
of
clarifying
definition.
It's
the
child
or
parent
of
one
another.
Did
you
did
you
take
that
language
from
somewhere?
H
Mark
smith-
yes,
absolutely
right
now
in
the
federal
law.
It's
a
little
odd.
It
includes
in
the
definition
of
domestic
violence,
a
parent
battering
a
child
assuming
they're,
both
adults
parent-hitting
child,
but
it
doesn't
go
the
other
way
child
hitting
parent.
We
have
seen
a
lot
more
child
parent
relationships.
People
are
moving
in
together,
living
with
one
another.
During
the
pandemic,
I've
seen
an
increase
in
domestic
related
crime
in
with
with
the
parent-child
relationship,
both
adults,
obviously,
and
so
that's
what
was
looked
to
be
captured
there.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
david
looker
for
the
record
assembly
district
20,
and
I
just
appreciate
some
clarification
on
the
this
retroactivity
concern
because
it
seems
to
me
that's
not
something
that's
going
to
be
created
by
this
bill.
It's
already
in
202.360
that,
if
you've
been
convicted
in
another
state
of
the
crime
of
domestic
violence,
we're
already
prohibited
possession
and
and
your
discussion
about
narrowing
the
scope
of
crimes
that
that
applies
to
would
seem
to
limit
the
retroactivity
concern
rather
than
expand
it.
So
could
you
just
say
a
little
more
about
that.
H
Mark
schizophrenia,
yes,
as
far
as
that
concern
you're
right
somebody
in
a
different
state
who
commits
the
crime
of
domestic
violence
as
long
as
it's
one
of
the
qualifying
relationships
is
prohibited
there
and
they're
going
to
be
prohibited
here,
no
matter
how
we
change
this
definition
and
as
far
as
the
other
times,
they
can
be
prohibited
federally
if
they
had
a
simple
battery
or
a
simple
salt
with
a
qualifying
relationship.
That
is
true,
they
would
be
prohibited
federally,
but
actually
not
under
our
state
law.
K
So
from
what
I
use
my
reading
and
what
you're
saying
then
for
those
who
are
concerned
about
retroactivity
you're,
giving
some
protection
rather
than
creating
new
problems.
A
F
Hey,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
just
thought
I
would
have
asked
it
earlier.
I
thank
you
for
the
leeway
in
the
2019
session
and
in
this
session
we've
been
working
a
lot
on
criminal
justice
reform,
trying
to
make
things
a
little
more
fair.
So,
with
this
bill
it
seems
we're
expanding
the
definition
of
people
who
are
breaking
the
law,
basically
that
we're
going
to
be
adding
more
people
to
these
criminal
roles.
So
I'm
wondering
you
know,
given
all
the
criminal
justice
reform
and
the
focus
on
racial
injustice
et
cetera.
F
H
H
More
people
are
in
non-married
type
of
relationships
and
I
think
that
goes
through
any
racial
community.
So
I
don't
know-
and
I
wouldn't
think
it
would
affect
one
group
much
differently
than
than
in
others,
but
I
don't
have
any
numbers
to
answer
your
question
directly.
A
And
I
guess
I
would
just
say
in
response
to
that,
you
know
it's
been
a
while,
since
I've
practiced
in
criminal
court,
but
domestic
violence
was
certainly
one
of
those
crimes
that
I
think
really
the
clients
that
I
represented
came
from
all
walks
of
life
all
backgrounds.
So
I
don't
know
that
I
can
agree
that
most
of
those
happen
in
certain
communities.
It
was
one
of
those
crimes,
much
like
driving
under
the
influence
that
seems
to
really
span
the
gamut
of
our
communities,
at
least
in
clark
county.
A
F
Maybe
I
maybe
maybe
I
said
it
incorrectly,
mr
chairman,
what
I'm
saying
is,
I
don't
know
the
numbers
so,
but
what
we've
heard
throughout
this
session
and
through
the
last
session
is
that
the
communities
of
color
are
inordinately
affected
by
some
of
these
laws.
So
that's
that's
what
I
was
getting
at,
let's
find
out.
You
know
before
we
move
on
on
this.
If
that
happens,
to
be
the
case
here,.
A
I
appreciate
that
assembly
wheeler
and
I
I
do
agree
with
you
there-
that
I
think
the
criminal
justice
system
as
a
whole
does
disproportionately
impact
particularly
communities
of
color.
I
just
note
that,
in
my
experience,
domestic
violence
and
duis
are
the
two
that
I
think
are
kind
of
the
exceptions
to
that
general
rule.
But
again
I'm
I
can
only
speak
for
clark
county
and
my
limited
experience.
So
I
think
the
the
question
is
a
relevant
one.
A
I
just
don't
know
whether
we
have
statistics
on
that
or
not,
but
mr
skiffalocko,
if
you
do
have
any
of
that
kind
of
information,
I'm
sure
you
don't
have
it
with
you
now,
but
would
welcome
you
to
present
that
to
committee
at
a
later
date.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
Okay,
I
would
like
to
move
on
to
testimony
and
there
may
be
more
questions
out
there
and-
and
I
appreciate
that-
and
so
I
would
ask
anyone
else
with
questions-
to
follow
up.
There's
a
lot
of
questions
about
the
retroactivity
piece
and
I
don't
want
to
go
too
far
down
that
rabbit
hole
today,
because
we've
got
a
lot
of
folks
would
like
to
be
heard
on
this
bill
in
testimony.
A
So
I
want
to
thank
the
city
of
henderson
and
judge
glassen
for
being
here
to
present
I'll.
Ask
you
if
you're
able
to
sit
tight
and
we'll
come
back
to
give
you
concluding
remarks
once
we
get
through
the
testimony
on
the
bill.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
assembly,
bill
42,
and
let
me
first
ask:
is
there
anyone
with
us
on
the
zoom
who
would
like
to
give
testimony
in
support
of
the
bill
who
has
not
already
spoken?
A
L
L
J
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
jon
jones
j-o-h-n-j-o-n-e-s
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorney
attorneys
association
and
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office.
We
are
here
in
support
of
ab42,
and
I
want
to
start
off
by
thanking
and
nicole
rourke
and
mark
skifalaqua
and
the
city
of
henderson
team
for
bringing
this
bill
and
keeping
us
updated
on
its
progress.
J
Mr
skifalaqua
is
correct
that
three
large
municipalities
in
southern
nevada
handle
more
db
cases
than
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office,
and
thus
we
support
their
efforts
to
clarify
the
law
with
regard
to
these
jurisdictions
and
how
they
handle
these
trials.
Instances
of
dv
that
occur
within
municipalities
are
best
handled
by
those
municipalities.
J
J
Finally,
we
support
section
one
of
the
bill
which
consolidates
any
misdemeanor
domestic
violence
to
the
underlying
felony
case
for
purposes
of
trial.
This
makes
sense
from
a
victim
standpoint
and
from
a
judicial
economy
standpoint
and
to
answer
assemblywoman's
question
between
september
of
2009.
When
the
anderson
decision
came
down
in
the
first
part
of
2020,
the
justice
partners
worked
hard
to
get
a
system
in
place
for
misdemeanor
jury
trials.
We
contracted
with
the
district
court
jury
services
to
get
this
system
in
place.
J
Unfortunately,
right
as
we
got
the
process
off
the
ground,
the
kobit
19
pandemic
hit
and
much
like
felony
trials.
The
mysto
trials
were
on
hold
for
a
greater
part
of
2020
and
a
few
weeks
of
this
year.
So
about
a
month
ago,
a
little
over
a
month
ago,
we
began
at
least
summoning
in
juries
again,
so
we
hope
to
get
the
program
off
the
ground
soon.
It's
my
understanding
in
between
the
various
governor's
orders.
With
respect
to
pauses,
we
were
able
to
get
a
handful
of
municipal.
Excuse
me
of
misdemeanor.
Jury
trials
done
to
completion.
J
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
mr
jones
and
bps.
Before
we
go
to
the
next
caller,
could
we
just
pause
for
a
brief?
Second,
I
overlooked.
We
have
miss
helbert
with
us
on
the
zoom
who
did
want
to
testify
in
support,
so
I'm
going
to
go
to
her
next
to
provide
her
testimony
and
then
we'll
go
back
to
the
phone
line.
So
I'm
sorry
for
overlooking
you
and
please
go
ahead
with
your
testimony.
D
D
So
the
committee
is
aware
our
jurisdiction
is
the
largest
municipality
in
the
state.
We
have
about
3
500
to
5
000
battery
domestic
violence
referrals
each
year,
and
so
again
the
committee
is
aware
two
of
our
courts
have
actually
held
that
they
do
not
have
the
authority
to
conduct
jury
trials
which
puts
us
at
a
standstill,
we're
essentially
waiting
for
a
nevada
supreme
court
ruling
to
tell
us
that
we
can
do
jury
trials
so
that
we
can
begin
charging
under
the
state
statute
what's
problematic
with.
That.
D
Is
that
the
anderson
decision
that
kind
of
got
us
here
took
four
years
to
get
to
from
filing
until
decision.
D
So,
four
years
with
our
numbers
is
almost
twenty
thousand
victims
that
do
not
get
the
protection
of
our
state
statute,
and
even
if
it
goes
to
the
supreme
court,
there
is
a
risk
that
they
can
rule
that
no,
it's
the
legislators
authority
to
give
us
the
ability
to
conduct
jury
trials,
and
then
we're
left
waiting
kind
of
like
this
last
session,
for
you
guys
to
convene
again
for
us
to
discuss
this.
D
So
it's
very
important
that
you
guys
fix
within
a
matter
of
weeks
which
we've
been
holding
up
for
several
years
kind
of
a
thing,
and
I
just
wanted
to
give
some
context
for
for
prosecuting
these
cases
in
the
interim.
That
makes
it
extremely
difficult,
as
this
committee
might
be
aware,
of
battery
domestic
violences
are
mandatory
arrests
and
mandatory
prosecution
crimes,
which
means
oftentimes
when
these
cases
go
to
trials.
Victim
and
defendants
are
still
together
and
I've
had
victims
arrive
with
their
abusers.
D
Sit
in
court
with
them
get
up.
Take
the
stand
testify
of
the
abuse,
as
their
defendant
sitting
in
court
then
get
up
get
in
the
car
and
go
home
with
that
person
and
as
a
prosecutor,
I
have
to
watch
this
person
leave
with
somebody
who's
committed
violence
against
them,
knowing
that
they're
going
to
a
house
that
has
firearms
in
it-
and
I
have
to
think
to
myself-
is
that
victim
actually
safer
for
having
gone
through
this
process
and
I
think
with
the
implementation
of
ab42,
I
can
answer.
D
Yes,
they
are
safer
for
having
gone
through
this
process,
but
without
it
I'm
left
unsure
and
I'm
even
more
afraid
for
her
safety
and
that's
not
even
including
victims
who
actually
have
left
their
offenders
and
who
are
afraid
of
retribution
and
and
we
sit
and
we
put
together
a
safety
plan
with
them.
But
I
have
to
tell
them
that
right
now,
because
of
the
split
of
authority
and
law,
they
know
he
gets
to
keep
his
guns,
even
if
he's
convicted,
and
so
I
want
to
thank
henderson
for
putting
this
bill
together.
D
I
look
forward
to
working
with
them
to
amend
the
effective
date.
I
do
think
that
it
needs
to
be
pushed
up
upon
passage,
and
I
would
like
to
welcome
you
all
to
reach
out
to
me
regarding
your
retroactivity
concerns,
I
think,
there's
some
specific
language
that
can
be
included
about
being
afforded
a
jury
trial
right
for
it
to
be
essentially
effective,
and
so,
please
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
our
office.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
Ms
halbert
appreciate
that
and
appreciate
your
patience
this
morning.
Okay,
bps.
Having
covered
all
the
support
of
testimony
on
the
zoom,
could
we
please
go
back
to
the
phone
and
take
the
next
caller
in
support
of
assembly
bill
42.
L
L
B
We
appreciate
the
city
of
henderson,
collaborating
with
other
jurisdictions
to
bring
this
bill
in
response
to
the
anderson
z,
state
ruling.
We
are
in
favor
of
ab42,
as
it
establishes
in-state
statute
that
municipal
courts
have
the
authority
to
conduct
jury
trials.
This
will
ensure
that
all
municipal
courts
are
able
to
hold
domestic
violence
offenders
accountable
through
jury
trials.
B
L
B
J
M
L
B
B
B
B
The
fiscal
impact
would
be
substantial
due
to
the
need
for
retrofit
and
expansion
of
our
municipal
courts
to
house
these
cases,
and
we
support
the
effective
date
for
passage
in
the
bill
to
accommodate
these
cases.
Again.
We'd
like
to
thank
the
city
of
henderson
for
working
with
us,
and
we
look
forward
to
continue
conversation
regarding
this
piece
of
legislation.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
your
time.
L
B
Chairman
yager
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
callie
wilsey
senior
management
analyst
with
the
city
of
reno,
my
name
is
c
a
l
l,
I
w,
I
l
s
e
y.
We
are
here
in
support
of
ab42
today,
with
the
amendment
presented
by
the
city
of
henderson.
We
want
to
thank
the
bill
sponsor
for
working
with
us
to
resolve
a
minor
operational
issue.
We
had
related
to
the
role
of
the
police
chief
versus
the
chief
marshal
in
our
local
system.
B
The
reno
municipal
court
has
already
converted
one
of
his
courtrooms
to
accommodate
the
needs
of
jury
trials,
and
this
legislation
allows
us
to
continue
our
partnership
with
the
second
district
court
on
jury
summons.
The
city
arena
will
be
able
to
operate
in
compliance
with
this
legislation
and
recent
case
law.
Thank
you
again
for
the
city
of
henderson,
for
working
with
us
and
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
testimony
today.
Thank
you.
L
B
B
In
addition
to
our
comprehensive
services,
we
work
directly
with
the
district
attorney's
office
and
have
two
advocates
placed
in
las
vegas
justice.
Court
safeness
serves
over
25
000
victims
of
domestic
violence
every
year,
as
you
heard
from
sereno
with
the
nevada
coalition
studies.
Show,
domestic
violence
is
much
more
likely
to
become
deadly
when
there
is
a
gun
in
the
home,
in
fact,
up
to
500
percent,
more
likely
to
become
deadly,
and
it's
important
to
remember
that
the
gun
is
not
only
a
tool
for
homicide.
It
is
also
a
tool
for
immigration,
intimidation
and
control.
B
B
The
three
largest
municipalities
in
clark
county,
which
carries
85
percent
of
the
domestic
violence
cases
for
the
state,
have
had
to
create
a
loophole
in
which
firearms
are
not
being
confiscated
from
convicted
batters.
This
leaves
not
only
victims
of
domestic
violence,
but
also
police,
at
an
increased
risk
for
homicide.
In
2017,
the
national
law
enforcement
officers.
Memorial
stated
that
domestic
violence
is
the
most
dangerous
call.
B
A
Thank
you,
bps,
I'm
going
to
close
supportive
testimony
before
we
move
on
to
opposition.
I
wanted
to
let
the
committee
know
that
I've
been
in
discussions
with
our
legal
counsel,
mr
wilkinson,
who
is
busy
drafting
bills,
but
also
trying
to
keep
tabs
on
what
we're
doing
here
in
the
committee,
and
I
just
wanted
to
point
the
committee.
If
you
have
the
original
bill
in
front
of
you
ab42,
I
wanted
to
point
you
to
the
end
of
the
bill.
A
Section
17
and
that
section
addresses
the
retroactivity
question
in
the
bill
and
essentially
what
it
says
is
that
this,
the
amendatory
provisions
of
this
bill
only
apply
if
an
offense
was
committed
after
the
effective
date
of
the
bill
which
currently
stands
at
january,
1,
2022
or
if
the
offense
was
committed
before
that
date,
but
was
pending
or
unresolved
so
from
legal.
The
concerns
that
were
raised
about
potential
retroactivity
are
taken
care
of
in
section
17
and
I
think
that
does
align
with
the
city
of
henderson's
intent
that
the
bill
just
be
applied
going
forward.
A
So
hopefully
that
is
helpful
in
terms
of
the
retroactivity
question
and
at
this
time
I'm
now
going
to
open
opposition
testimony.
I
don't
think
we
have
anyone
on
the
zoom
in
opposition,
but
I'm
just
going
to
wait
a
brief
moment
to
make
sure
I'm
right
about
that.
So
if
you
are
on
the
zoom
and
you're
in
opposition,
if
you
could
turn
your
camera
on
and
unmute.
A
L
M
M
I
want
to
thank
the
members
of
this
committee.
I
represent
the
nacj
today
we
oppose
ab42
it's
it's
still,
not
a
complete
expansion
of
jury
trials
for
battery
domestic
violence,
offenses
and
municipal
courts
throughout
the
state.
It's
unacceptable
that
municipal
courts
and
smaller
jurisdictions
may
opt
out
either.
This
bill
needs
to
be
amended
to
to
state
that
any
court
hearing
battery
domestic
violence
trials
must
provide
for
a
jury,
trial
or
all
misdemeanor
battery
domestic
violence
counts
must
be
filed
in
justice
court.
M
We
believe
it
should
not
be
discretionary
for
municipal
courts
to
choose
to
not
have
a
jury
trial
or
not.
The
amendment
also
attempts
to
clean
up
language,
removing
18,
usc,
section
921
a33,
but
even
the
way
that
they
have
listed.
The
four
categories
of
who
would
be
covered
by
the
battery
domestic
violence
statute
and
the
relationships
that
would
get
a
jury
trial
needs
to
be
cleaned
up.
Specifically,
the
language
related
to
the
parent
and
child,
which
is
which
is
section
four
of
in
section
13..
M
The
amendments
do
not
address
our
concerns
that
procedures
for
criminal
trials
for
misdemeanors
must
be
identical
to
those
for
district
court
trials.
We
re
reiterate
that
the
right
to
trial
by
jury
attaches
to
the
charge
of
battery
constituting
domestic
violence.
The
jury
trial
right
should
not
be
withdrawn,
based
upon
the
status
of
the
defendant.
In
fact,
the
anderson
decision
never
addressed
the
status
of
the
defendant.
Only
that
mr
anderson
was
entitled
to
a
jury
trial,
because
the
offense
was
indeed
serious.
M
There
is
an
amendment
that
proposes
that
jurors
from
the
entire
county
rather
than
municipal
boundaries.
If
the
municipal
district
has
a
small
population,
we
are
concerned
that
may
serve
to
eliminate
diversity
of
jurors.
Also.
We
are
not
in
agreement
with
the
number
of
peremptory
challenges
and
alternate
jurors
of
that
being
proposed
in
the
amendment
and
would
prefer
12
jurors,
although
the
language
says,
as
minimum
says,
minimum
six
jurors.
It's
certainly
better
than
a
misdemeanor
jury,
has
six
misdemeanors
and
has
six
jurors
we
think
to
continue.
M
We
continue
to
take
the
position
about
excuse
me.
We
take
no
position
rather
about
consolidating
battery
domestic
violence
charges
in
in
district
court
with
felonies
and
gross
misdemeanors.
We
believe
that
a
defendant
charged
with
battery
domestic
violence
should
not
have
to
demand
a
jury
trial.
Defendants
don't
have
to
demand
a
jury
trial
for
gross
misdemeanors
or
for
felonies.
Finally,
12
jurors
should
be
required
instead
of
six
a
defendant
in
a
civil
case,
who's
being
sued
for
more
than
fifteen
thousand
dollars
has
the
right
to
an
eight
person.
M
Jury
though
he
or
she
is
not
facing
incarceration,
not
facing
a
criminal
conviction
nor
facing
the
loss
of
a
constitutional
right.
Yet
a
person
charged
with
battery
domestic
violence
faces
six
months
up
to
six
months
in
jail
and
the
lifelong
loss
of
a
constitutional
right
again,
a
person
facing
bad
or
domestic
violence
only
gets
six
persons
to
six
people
to
hear
that
in
on
their
jury.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
L
B
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
the
clarification
on
section
17
related
to
retroactive,
but
that
is
helpful,
and
that
is
a
big
concern
of
ours.
So
I'm
I'm
happy
to
hear
that
and
look
forward
to
having
that
discussion
a
little
bit
more.
Regarding
the
change
in
section
13,
we're
still
concerned
that
the
types
of
disqualifying
misdemeanor
crimes
should
be
limited
to
those
with
an
element
of
physical
force
or
the
threat
of
use
of
a
deadly
weapon,
not
offenses
that
have
no
element
of
force
or
violence
such
as
trespassing.
B
The
nevada
supreme
court
has
made
it
clear
people
accused
of
misdemeanor
domestic
violence
should
have
the
right
to
a
jury
trial
if
their
second
amendment
rights
are
in
question.
So
we
stand
by
the
intent
of
this
law
to
allow
due
process
if
your
second
amendment
rights
are
threatened
and
you
are
entitled
to
a
jury
trial.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
present
our
concerns
and
are
willing
to
work
with
the
sponsors
to
find
a
way
what
to
what
appears
to
be
truly
a
kind
of
a
budget
issue
for
municipalities
to
provide
jury
trials.
B
A
L
J
J
We
have
been
working
with
the
city
of
henderson
and
trying
to
get
to
some
agreeable
language.
However,
our
opposition
to
ab42
still
stems
from
section
13,
both
in
the
original
bill,
the
expansion
of
the
prohibited
categories
as
well
as
in
the
amendment.
We
still
feel
this
goes
beyond
the
federal
law.
The
federal
law
is
important
because
it
provides
consistency,
there's
clear
elements
as
far
as
what
is
both
domestic
and
violent
to
be
a
lifetime
prohibition
for
firearms,
we
will
continue
to
work
with
the
sponsors.
J
We
continue
to
have
concerns
about
what
this
could
do,
especially
for
many
people
that
may
come
to
visit
the
state,
and
we
also
have
concerns
about.
I
understand
that
this
bill
is
limited
in
retroactivity
looking
forward
for
crimes
that
would
meet
under
section
13.
However,
the
federal
law
does
continue
to
look
backwards,
and
so
with
that
we'll
we
are
in
opposition,
but
we
will
continue
to
work
with
the
sponsors.
Thank
you.
A
L
I
Good
morning,
chairman
jaeger
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-t-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
We
have
always
believed
that
the
right
to
a
jury
trial
for
any
crime
or
deprivation
of
liberty
is
important,
because
liberty
is
our
most
sacrosanct
thing
that
we
have.
Muni
courts
should
be
allowed
to
have
jury
trials,
because
the
justice
that
you
get
in
one
part
of
the
city
should
not
be
different
than
the
justice
that
you
get
in
another
part
of
the
city.
I
There
is
a
cure
to
this
problem,
but
the
bill
as
written
even
with
its
amendments
are
not
the
cure,
but
I
think
we
can
get
there
if
we
continue
to
work
on
that-
and
I
I'd
like
to
thank
the
mr
skifalaqua
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
talking
with
us
about
it,
but
we
think
that
more
conversations
need
to
be
had
to
get
the
bill
there.
I
I
There
hasn't
been
a
slew
of
trials
where
we've
been
using
up
all
these
jurors
in
the
community.
I
think
when
the
decision
first
happened,
we
had
five
trials
and
there
were
four
not
guilty
in
the
whole
state.
I
will
say
that
mr
skifalaqua
said
he
consulted
with
the
justice
court,
but
he
certainly
didn't
consult
necessarily
with
the
people
that
are
actually
picking
the
juries
here,
which
would
be
us
in
this
case.
I.
I
The
committee
that,
even
though
there's
been
problems
with
here,
that
the
domestic
violence
statute,
because
of
the
anderson
decision
prosecutions
haven't
halted,
people
have
continued
to
be
prosecuted
under
this,
so
there
hasn't
been
this
widespread
halting
of
prosecution.
Hopefully
we
can
work
the
issues
out
in
this
bill
and
allow
meeting
courts
to
conduct
jury
trials.
Thank
you.
L
C
C
K-E-N-D-R-A-B-E-R-T-S-E-H-Y
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office,
I
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
for
bringing
this
forward
there's
bill
ford
and
for
starting
to
engage
in
the
discussion
with
us
regarding
this
bill,
and
we
hope
to
continue
that
discussion
to
ensure
that
the
law
that
we
are
passing
will
work
across
the
state
of
nevada.
I
understand
that
the
intention
of
this
bill
is
to
allow
municipal
courts
to
provide
jury
trials
for
domestic
battery
cases,
but
this
bill
will
impact
anyone
charged
with
a
domestic
battery
regardless
if
they
are
charged
in
municipal
court
or
another
court.
C
In
my
discussion
with
the
sponsor
yesterday,
it
was
my
understanding
that
the
intention
of
this
bill
is
to
ensure
that
everyone
has
a
right
to
a
jury
trial
based
on
the
nature
of
the
relationship
between
the
accused
and
the
complaining
witness.
Not
the
status
of
the
accused.
The
status
of
the
person
accused
has
never
been
an
element
of
this
offense.
The
relationship
is
what
is
at
issue,
I'm
very
concerned
if
we
are
making
that
distinction
or
requiring
there
to
be
litigation
which
would
be
very
costly
and
adding
additional
time
and
burden
upon
everyone.
C
C
The
sixth
amendment
secures
to
persons
charges
the
crime
the
right
to
be
trialed
by
an
impartial
jury
reflecting
a
fair
cross
section
of
the
community.
We
believe
that
section
four,
which
requires
only
or
two
prime
three
challenges,
is
very
detrimental.
When
considered
the
sixth
amendment,
there's
no
in
my
research,
I
did
not
find
a
single
state
which
has
jury
selection
for
misdemeanor
cases
that
limited
your
preemptory
challenges
to
only
two.
This
is
extremely
important
when
ensuring
that
we
are
picking
jurors,
who
are
fair
and
impartial.
C
L
B
B
A
L
A
D
I'm
here
today
to
testify
in
neutral
for
ab42.
I
have
with
me
today,
nicole
lubich,
who
oversees
our
brady
point
of
contact
program
to
assist
in
answering
any
questions
that
that
committee
members
may
have
section
13
of
assembly.
Bill
42
removes
the
federal
definition
of
domestic
violence
and
replaces
it
with
a
definition
of
an
act
which
constitutes
domestic
violence
pursuant
to
nrs
33.018.
D
D
If
this
bill
is
enacted
as
introduced,
the
criteria
will
increase
to
15
prohibitors,
thus
increase
increasing
research
that
will
impact
the
workload
for
the
division,
as
well
as
the
local
criminal
justice
agencies
around
the
state
and
nation.
Due
to
the
division.
Submitting
requests
to
these
agencies
for
information
to
ascertain
the
status
for
determination
purposes.
D
The
impact
of
the
additional
workload
as
a
result
should
ab42
pass,
may
necessitate
additional
staff
in
the
brady
point
of
contact
firearms
program,
we'll
be
reaching
out
to
mr
skifalaqua
to
discuss
the
impact
of
this
bill
in
our
division.
This
concludes
my
testimony
and
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
committee
members
may
have.
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
this
is
to
miss
llamas.
Did
you
all?
What
do
you
expect?
I
guess
it's
two
parts.
What
would
be
the
physical
impact
you'll
have
to
increase
staff
and
what
would
be
the
time
delays,
because
if
I
remember
you
only
have
three
days
to
respond
and
either
pass
or
disqualify
a
person
from
a
purchase.
D
D
Erica
susayamus
for
the
record,
there
is
a
possibility
that
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
meet
the
three
days.
It
would
most
likely
increase
the
amount
of
unresolved
cases
that
we
have.
A
L
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
bps
for
helping
us
to
manage
the
phone
lines
this
morning.
I
will
close
neutral
testimony
and
I'm
now
going
to
go
back
to
our
presenters
from
city
of
henderson
and
then
to
judge
glassen
for
any
concluding
remarks
on
assembly
bill
42.
So
we'll
start
with
you,
mr
skifalaqua.
Thank.
H
You
mark
skipalaqua.
I
do
want
to
very
much
thank
the
chair
and
the
vice
chair.
I've
had
conversations
with
you
both
these
past
few
years
on
this
difficult
issue
facing
our
judiciary,
and
I
do
appreciate
your
your
insight.
H
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
a
few
things,
but
I
think
there
is
some
good
news
here.
I
I
heard
all
the
opposition,
but
I
really
didn't
hear
anybody
say
that
anyone's
really
against
giving
municipal
courts
the
authority
and
the
rules
to
proceed
with
these
trials,
and
so
I
think
that
is
a
good
thing
and
I
do
think
any
other
differences
can
be
worked
out
going
forward.
I
did
want
to
clarify,
though
some
things
mr
perriente
said,
and
he
may
not
have
heard
my
original
testimony.
H
So
I
understand
that,
but
the
goal-
and
I
worked
with
the
public
defenders
on
this
several
months
ago-
was
that
they
would
not
have
to
file
a
written
demand
if
there's
a
constitutional
right
to
a
jury
trial
like
they
would
now
so
that
is
already
fixed
in
in
section
two
of
the
bill.
H
As
far
as
this
concern
about
cities,
opting
out
just
be
clear
on
that.
This
doesn't
force
cities
to
have
jury
trials,
but
again,
like
I
said,
if
you're
a
prosecutor
and
you're
filing
a
domestic
violence
charge
that
has
an
associated
penalty
of
firearm
prohibition,
your
court
is
going
to
have
to
provide
that
level
of
due
process
to
a
defendant,
so
it
doesn't
force
a
prosecutor
to
do
it.
If,
if,
if
a
certain.
H
Handle
that
accommodation
they
would
have
to
go
to
the
county,
who
has
concurrent
jurisdiction
on
state
laws,
there's
certainly
no
issue
or
violation
of
law
there.
This
bill
overall,
though,
is
about
protecting
folks
in
domestic
violence
situations,
but
also
giving
those
who
are
accused
of
which
the
due
process
that
they're
owed.
H
I
would
also
say
that
I
know
there's
been
some
comments
about
this
expanding
to
a
lot
of
different
other
types
of
acts.
Happy
to
make
this
clear.
The
goal
of
this
bill
is
simply
battery
domestic
violence,
and
not
only
that
you'd
have
to
be
both
charged
and
convicted
of
that
one
offense
to
be
prohibited
under
this.
Under
this
change,
this
would
not
apply
to
trespassing
or
coercion
or
other
types
of
defenses.
So
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear,
absolutely
clear
on
that
more
than
happy
to
make
it
clearer
in
the
bill
if
needed.
H
Currently,
we
do
prosecute
for
dating
relationships
in
our
courts.
That's
something
new
that
would
be
a
new
prosecution.
It
would
just
be
included
in
the
amendment.
That
is
all
I
have.
I
do
want
to
thank
again
the
committee
and
everyone's
comments
today.
This
work
and
I
both
appreciate
all
of
your
hard
work.
I
I
This
proposed
amendment
would
allow
access
to
justice
in
our
rural
courts
in
counties
to
continue
to
provide
jury
trials
for
battery
domestic
cases,
with
a
lot
of
ease
and
not
being
able
or
to
see
me
not
being
required
to
pick
on
the
same
people
week
after
week
after
week
cost
a
much
larger
net
for
our
township
that
are
located
in
high
tourist
areas,
and
I
thank
you
for
the
time
and
your
patience
today.
A
Thank
you
judge,
appreciate
that
and
thank
you
to
the
three
of
you
for
presenting
and
mr
skifalaqua.
I
hope
it
didn't
feel
too
uncomfortable
to
have
the
tables
turned
on.
You
usually
you're
the
one
asking
the
questions
in
court
and
we
had
a
chance
to
ask
you
some
this
morning.
So
we
appreciate
that,
and
it
sounds
to
me
like
there
may
be
some
additional
conversations
that
need
to
happen
around
the
bill.
A
A
So
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
42
and
that
takes
us
to
our
final
item
on
the
agenda
today
and
that
item
is
public
comment.
By
way
of
a
reminder,
we
reserve
30
minutes
of
public
comment
at
the
end
of
each
meeting
for
public
comment.
Callers
on
the
public
comment
line
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
comment
and
public
comment
is
a
chance
for
individuals
to
raise
matters
of
a
general
nature
that
are
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
A
L
L
L
Today,
I'd
like
to
talk
about
our
tia
porter,
who
was
22
years
old
when
he
was
killed
during
the
mental
health
crisis
by
washer,
county
sheriff's
office,
reno,
police
and
sparks
police
department,
porter,
originally
called
9-1-1
to
report.
He
was
suicidal
because
his
daughter
had
died
and
his
wife
was
pregnant
with
another
child
that
the
investigation
showed
that
he
had
no
daughter
or
wife
police
were
very
familiar
with
rtr.
L
In
february
of
2016,
he
had
called
9-1-1
and
expressed
failing
to
kill
somebody.
He
was
not
on
his
medication
and
was
taken
to
a
mental
health
facility.
In
february
20
2016,
he
called
911
stating
he
felt
like
he
might
stab
someone.
He
was
not
on
his
medications
and
he
was
also
taken
to
a
mental
health
facility.
That
day
on
july,
1st
2015
sparks
police
responded
to
a
group
home
where
our
tier
was
living
and
he
was
suicidal.
L
He
was
taken
to
nnamhs
and
in
2014
law
enforcement
had
several
encounters
with
him
as
well.
In
the
district
attorney
washa
county
district
attorney,
chris
hicks
report
justifying
the
shooting
he
states
that
the
criminal
and
mental
illness
history
of
a
person
shot
in
an
ois
is
not
relevant
in
ois
reviews.
However,
in
this
case,
officers
were
professionally
aware
of
porter
and
his
history
making
and
relevant
to
their
decision
making.
L
So
so
they
knew
this
man
had
made
prior
threats
before
and
never
followed
through
with
them,
but
this
time
they
decided
when
they
heard
the
word
gun
that
the
man
had
a
gun.
All
they
heard
was
gun.
They
didn't
hear
a
person
in
crisis,
they
lost
sight
of
that
and
he
was
shot
at
24
times
by
multiple
officers.
Please
do
not
support
bills
that
protect
bad
policing.
Please
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability
for
families
like
myself
in
our
tears.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
bps
for
helping
us
manage
the
phone
lines
this
morning.
I
will
close
public
comment
that
takes
us
through
everything
on
our
agenda
anything
else
from
our
very
hard-working
and
dedicated
committee
members.
Before
we
talk
about
the
rest
of
this
week,
okay,
don't
see
anything.
Thank
you
committee
for
getting
through
that
bill
this
morning.
A
A
Just
so
everyone
knows
we'll
take
those
bills
out
of
order,
so
I'll
be
presenting
one
of
the
bills
first,
and
it
should
be
rather
quick,
so
our
vice
chair
will
step
in
and
share
that
portion
of
the
meeting
and
then
we'll
take
the
second
bill
and
then
we're
still
working
on
friday's
agenda.
I
do
suspect
we're
gonna
hear
anywhere
between
one
and
three
bills
and
perhaps
have
a
work
session
as
well.
A
So
we're
gonna
start
at
eight
o'clock
on
friday,
because
I
need
to
make
sure
that
we
finish
the
meeting
before
any
potential
floor
session
we
might
have,
and
then
we
are
working
on
next
week
as
well.
So
I
don't
have
agendas
yet
posted
for
next
week.
I'm
not
sure
what
that
looks
like
quite
yet,
but
hopefully
I
will
know
tomorrow
or
if
not
I'll,
certainly
know
on
friday
and
I'll
be
able
to
tell
you
then
so.
Thank
you
again
committee.
I
will
see
everyone
back
here
tomorrow
morning
at
eight
o'clock.
This
meeting
is.