Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/14/1994 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 1994
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Cliff Davidson
Rep. Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 349: "An Act providing for the civil commitment of
sexually violent predators."
CSHB 349 MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 445: "An Act relating to operating or driving a motor
vehicle, commercial motor vehicle, aircraft, or
watercraft."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 460: "An Act relating to bail after conviction for
various felonies if the defendant has certain
previous felony convictions."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 376: "An Act relating to services for and protection of
vulnerable adults; and providing for an effective
date."
NOT HEARD
HB 340: "An Act prohibiting the furlough of sex
offenders."
NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
9801 Grange, No. 1
Anchorage, AK 99518
344-9557
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 349
(Spoke via teleconference)
REP. SEAN PARNELL
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
465-2995
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 349
MARGOT O. KNUTH
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
465-4049
Position Statement: Testified on HB 349
C.E. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
465-4322
Position Statement: Testified on HB 445
JUANITA HENSLEY
Chief of Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, AK 99802-0020
465-2650
Position Statement: Testified on HB 445
SERGEANT RANDY CRAWFORD
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
465-4322
Position Statement: Testified on HB 445
REP. MIKE NAVARRE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
465-3779
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 460
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 349
SHORT TITLE: CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEXUAL PREDATORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PARNELL,Toohey,Olberg,Sanders,
Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/07/94 2019 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/10/94 2019 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2019 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/13/94 2056 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OLBERG
01/26/94 2160 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SANDERS
02/07/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/07/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/09/94 2310 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 5DP 2NR 2AM
02/09/94 2310 (H) DP: KOTT, BUNDE, TOOHEY,
B.DAVIS, BRICE
02/09/94 2310 (H) NR: OLBERG, NICHOLIA
02/09/94 2310 (H) AM: VEZEY, G. DAVIS
02/09/94 2311 (H) -3 FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, LAW,
ADM) 2/9/94
02/09/94 2311 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 2/9/94
02/09/94 2328 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
02/14/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
02/16/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/09/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 445
SHORT TITLE: DWI LAWS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/04/94 2261 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/04/94 2262 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/04/94 2262 (H) -3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (2-ADM,
LAW) 2/4/94
02/04/94 2262 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 2/4/94
02/04/94 2262 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 460
SHORT TITLE: NO BAIL FOR FELONS W/PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NAVARRE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/11/94 2344 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/11/94 2345 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/11/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 376
SHORT TITLE: ASSIST & PROTECT VULNERABLE ADULTS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/14/94 2066 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/14/94 2066 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/14/94 2067 (H) -4 FNS (3-DHSS, ADM) 1/14/94
01/14/94 2067 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 1/14/94
01/14/94 2067 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/09/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/09/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/09/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/11/94 2341 (H) HES RPT 4DP 3NR 1AM
02/11/94 2341 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY, B.DAVIS,
NICHOLIA
02/11/94 2341 (H) NR: KOTT, G.DAVIS, OLBERG
02/11/94 2341 (H) AM: VEZEY
02/11/94 2342 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 2/11/94
02/11/94 2342 (H) -4 PREVIOUS FNS (ADM, 3-DHSS)
1/14/94
02/11/94 2342 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE
(ADM) 1/14/94
03/11/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 340
SHORT TITLE: NO FURLOUGHS FOR CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)PARNELL,Phillips,Toohey,
Sanders,Olberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/94 2016 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/10/94 2016 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2016 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/12/94 2043 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY, SANDERS
01/13/94 2055 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OLBERG
03/02/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/04/94 2603 (H) HES RPT 3DP 4NR 1AM
03/04/94 2603 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY, BRICE
03/04/94 2603 (H) NR: G.DAVIS, OLBERG, NICHOLIA,
KOTT
03/04/94 2604 (H) AM: VEZEY
03/04/94 2604 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (CORR) 3/4/94
03/04/94 2604 (H) -3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS,
2-ADM) 3/4/94
03/04/94 2604 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
03/09/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-41, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order
at 1:30 p.m. on March 14, 1994. A quorum was present.
Chairman Porter announced that the committee would be
hearing HB 349, HB 445 and HB 460. He said HB 376 and HB
340 would be held over and HB 376 would be heard on
Wednesday.
HB 349 - CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEXUAL PREDATORS
Number 037
MR. MICHAEL O'CONNOR presented testimony via teleconference
in support of HB 349. He expressed concerns regarding the
need for rehabilitation of dangerous individuals showing
sexual tendencies towards children seeking sexual
gratification. He felt an urgent need to get this civil
commitment bill passed.
Number 133
REP. SEAN PARNELL, Prime Sponsor of HB 349, explained the
bill, stating that the bill in general requires that the
Department of Corrections notify the attorney general's
office upon releasing a potentially violent predator from
prison. The offender would then be committed to the
Department of Health and Social Services for a period of
time, becoming subject to procedural protections. Rep.
Parnell stated that the committee substitute (CS) work draft
incorporates the following amendments:
On page 2, line 1, the phrase "among this group" was added.
Also, line 7 refers to "this group" of violent offenders, in
an attempt to focus in on the "group" of sexually violent
predators, who are not immune to existing mental illness
treatment methods of the 30, 60, 90 day proceeding under
current state law.
On page 3, line 29, the clause, "following the judicial
determination of probable cause," was added. Rep. Parnell
said this was a suggestion from the Department of Law. It
was assumed that this was going to take place within 45 days
after filing the petition, that there would be a finding of
probable cause, but it was made clear through that language.
On page 4, line 6, the words "the expert or professional"
replaced the word "examiner."
On page 5, lines 26-28, it was suggested by committee staff
that once they are confined, they would be notified by the
department of their right to annual reviews and
examinations, so they do not have to wait a year and then
find out they have these rights.
REP. PARNELL said those are all the changes that the
committee adopted last time.
CHAIRMAN PORTER drew attention to the page labeled "Proposed
Amendments" and stated that page 4, lines 15-18, would be
Amendment 1; page 8, lines 2 and 3, would be Amendment 2;
page 8, lines 17 and 18, would be Amendment 3; page 8, lines
27-29, would be Amendment 4; and all of the lines on pages
4, 6, and 7 would be Amendment 5.
Number 225
REP. PARNELL addressed Amendment 1, explaining that the
Washington Supreme Court case requires a person who is to be
committed, who has not been in prison, to demonstrate a
recent overt act, meaning a crime, such as sexual predatory
offense, in order for the person to be civilly committed.
That overt act requirement has been incorporated into the
bill, as well as having turned the focus onto the conduct
rather than on the presence of sexual motivation. On page
4, lines 15-18, in the work draft, are the words "sexual
motivation." He said there had been some discussion from
MARGOT KNUTH, Department of Law, regarding proof of sexual
motivation and instead, throughout these amendments, the
committee will see a focus on the actual conduct of a
person, rather than on the motivation of a person.
Number 264
REP. GAIL PHILLIPS moved Amendment 1.
CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
Number 277
MS. MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law, stated her belief that it
should not require more than an attempted act, and that some
specific language is needed to define what types of conduct
would satisfy the legal requirements for "attempt." She
said it need not be a sexually related act, but any act
showing dangerousness. It could be a traditional assaultive
type of behavior; something that says, "Not only are we
dealing with somebody who is in need of treatment, but it is
a matter of dangerousness as well."
Number 294
CHAIRMAN PORTER gave the example of the Chico Rodriguez
case, wherein with no establishment of an act, those acts
that he may or may not have been involved in during his time
in prison have not been documented.
Number 316
REP. JIM NORDLUND agreed with Chairman Porter that for those
persons already in prison, this recent overt act requirement
will not apply to them because they have already been
convicted of that act; but, on the other hand, it does
indeed apply to those persons already out of prison and
those not yet in prison.
Number 327
MS. KNUTH said as long as you are in prison, the clock goes
back and encompasses your conduct all the way back. Once
you are released from prison, then the sense is that
previous acts committed cannot be included in a future civil
commitment determination; a new act would be required.
REP. NORDLUND asked why, if you have proven beyond a
reasonable doubt, which is the high standard, that somebody
has committed an act of dangerousness, would you just
prosecute them under the normal criminal procedures and land
them back in jail? He also questioned whether you are given
a choice of prosecuting them and putting them into the
prison system or putting them into API.
Number 360
MS. KNUTH answered that that is another option. The act of
dangerous could only amount to reckless endangerment or a
car speed misdemeanor offense, or maybe assault where your
options are very limited in "misdemeanor-land." This would
provide greater control, making this a matter that, in some
cases, will not make sense. A felony offense would be the
preferred requirement, particularly a Class A or
unclassified, providing more control in most instances.
Number 380
REP. PARNELL thought this was more in line with a civil
commitment philosophy in the sense that these people are
being treated as well as confined. The fact that they are
in prison, or have not been in prison, may not need be
critical to the felony. In terms of the differentiation of
the potential outcomes of prosecuting the crime or
proceeding under this avenue, the crime does not have to be
a serious felony in terms of Class A. It could be a crime
for which the sentence would be minimal and the otherwise
sexual violent predator would be right back in society. He
assumed it could be a crime that is completely unrelated to
it. It could be a sexual predator who gets into a barroom
fight with another guy; a completely unrelated act. The
problem is of more concern to the public.
Number 413
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was further discussion or any
objection on Amendment 1. Noting that Rep. Phillips had
moved the amendment, Chairman Porter declared Amendment 1
passed without objection.
Number 415
REP. PARNELL addressed Amendment 2, page 8, lines 2 and 3,
the immunity section. He said there was concern over wide
open immunity from liability for department people for their
actions. The original language stated that they would be
immune from liability for any good faith conduct. Instead,
it was changed to say this section does not preclude
liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence
or reckless intentional misconduct.
Number 420
REP. PHILLIPS moved Amendment 2.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for further discussion or any
objection. Hearing none, Amendment 2 passed.
Number 421
REP. PARNELL addressed Amendment 3, page 8, lines 17 and 18.
He said the lines defining "sexually motivated" were
deleted. He explained they would prefer to focus on the
conduct of the individual rather than the motivation because
conduct is easier to prove than sexual motivation.
Number 425
MS. KNUTH commented that this change was in response to the
Chairman's insight to get away from sexually motivated. She
explained that by taking out .824 (3) they readdressed the
problem in 4 (B), which is Amendment 4, and the two
amendments dovetail together. She stated that the conduct
they proposed using was that the person engaged in or
intended to engage in sexual penetration, sexual contact, or
sexually gratifying conduct.
Number 440
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for further discussion or any
objection to Amendment 3. Rep. Kott moved Amendment 3.
Hearing no objections, Chairman Porter declared Amendment 3
passed.
Number 445
REP. PARNELL noted that Amendment 4, page 8, lines 27-29,
had already been discussed, which described the conduct Ms.
Knuth described.
Number 455
REP. PHILLIPS moved Amendment 4.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for discussion or objection. Hearing
none, he declared Amendment 4 passed.
Number 489
REP. PARNELL addressed Amendment 5. He believed the Office
of Public Advocacy or the public defender, rather than the
court, should be representing these people. He noted one
concern is cost, and the other concern is that this type of
hearing not look like a criminal trial. At this point, the
Office of Public Advocacy will hear these cases, for that
reason. It would then, at least in statute, look more like
we are trying to commit these persons, rather than trying to
give them a second sentence.
Number 529
REP. NORDLUND agreed with the suggestion of delegating this
procedure to the agency most able to handle the task
effectively.
Number 533
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for further discussion and noted that
Amendment 5 had been moved. Without objection, Amendment 5
passed.
Number 544
REP. PHILLIPS motioned to move CSHB 349, including
amendments, individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. There was an objection for the purpose of
discussion.
Discussion ensued on whether a person who was incarcerated
could continually request to be reevaluated.
REP. PARNELL said that language could be found on page 7,
line 17 and line 24, and he basically only gets one shot.
MS. KNUTH clarified that the person actually gets as many
shots as they want, but there is a mechanism whereby the
judge doesn't have to pay quite so much attention after the
first shot. They get one considered evaluation and after
that it is hoped to be pro forma unless the person presents
new evidence to suggest that something significant had
happened.
Number 580
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that persons committed under such
provisions would be allowed to request periodical re-
evaluations of their condition in order to determine the
appropriateness of a lengthy sentence.
Number 595
REP. NORDLUND said he supported the intent behind HB 349,
yet expressed concern over the fiscal note in that the state
will have to spend $1.2 million for treatment programs for
these people after they have served their time under the
purview of the Department of Corrections. He would much
rather see that kind of money spent for treatment programs
immediately after the person has offended and while they are
still in the Department of Corrections. He said he
supported the bill, but he thought it was applying the
treatment services too late in the process and he would
rather see the money spent earlier.
Number 616
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for further discussion and any
objections. Hearing none, he declared CSHB 349 moved out of
committee.
Number 628
HB 445 - DWI LAWS
Number 635
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER C.E. SWACKHAMMER, Department of Public
Safety, announced that Governor Hickel introduced this bill,
based primarily on the high rate of alcohol and drug related
vehicle accidents that involve injury and death. Alaska has
one of the highest rates of controlled substance related
accidents. Implied consent statutes allow testing for
drugs, etc., after a person is involved in an accident
relating to alcohol or drugs, causing death or serious
injury (if a person was not charged with anything).
Number 683
REP. NORDLUND questioned the clause inferring that the same
persons who would be tested for drugs and/or alcohol would
be those not charged with anything after the accident. He
was going on the assumption that such persons would usually
be charged indeed.
DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER disagreed. He said arrests are
usually avoided in these instances, since those involved
usually end up in the hospital. If they are arrested at
that time, the Department of Public Safety assumes the
liability for that person, which is not financially prudent.
Number 720
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief of Driver Services, Division of Motor
Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, clarified the issue
by saying that a person who consents to taking a breath test
does not have to be arrested until the results are there.
If they refuse to take the test, then they are placed under
arrest at that time.
Number 730
CHAIRMAN PORTER added that in the hospital this would allow
the tests to be ordered without their permission because of
this implied consent; and physicians, to avoid legal action
against themselves, will not perform these tests without the
law in place, because they have been sued.
Number 745
REP. PHILLIPS questioned why the primary emphasis on the
sponsor statement is motor vehicles, and yet the title of
the bill is "Motor Vehicle, Aircraft and Watercraft."
Number 756
MS. HENSLEY explained to Rep. Phillips that the current
statute now includes motor vehicle, aircraft, and
watercraft. A person loses his or her driver's license at
the time they are convicted of a DWI in a motor vehicle or
aircraft, but watercraft is not included. The only
provisions that apply to watercraft are jail sentencing and
fines. Nobody loses their driver's license for operating a
watercraft while intoxicated.
Number 779
REP. PETE KOTT asked JUANITA HENSLEY if a definition for
"motor vehicle" exists.
Number 784
MS. HENSLEY answered affirmatively. She said the statute
also defines "commercial vehicle." Two sections of Title 28
deal with commercial motor vehicles. The definitions are
based on size and weight of the vehicle.
Number 802
SGT. CRAWFORD asked if snow machines fit into that category.
MS. HENSLEY told Sgt. Crawford that they do, if they are
being operated in a vehicular area; then they are considered
vehicles.
Number 812
REP. NORDLUND asked what the grounds are for a person
"operating a vehicle under the influence?" He questioned,
"What would give you cause, under this bill, to impose a
test on somebody?"
SGT. HENSLEY answered that under this bill it has to do
specifically with accidents; the driving, the scene
description, the skid marks, and the type of accident.
Those types of things would indicate whether this was an icy
road accident or someone going through a stop sign. There
could be any number of things: pipes in the car, or an
empty pill bottle could indicate drug use.
Number 831
REP. NORDLUND asked how this type of accident would be
handled if the evidence in the car did not seem to have
anything to with the accident.
Number 835
SGT. HENSLEY answered that that would not necessarily apply,
unless some further indication of drugs existed, such as
whether or not the driver was able to talk. There would
have to be some contributing factor in order to explore the
possibility of drug involvement.
Number 845
REP. JOE GREEN asked if there was a similar method of
indicating the presence of drugs, in a single step, in the
same manner that a Breathalyzer indicates the presence of
alcohol.
Number 851
SGT. HENSLEY said there are indications in the person's
behavior, if the officer is trained properly.
TAPE 94-41, SIDE B
Number 007
REP. CLIFF DAVIDSON asked whether or not we allow for
training in drug and alcohol detection, and questions
regarding accuracy of drug and alcohol tests.
Number 034
DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER stated that HB 319 would give an
opportunity to enhance the short supply of funding for
training. He believes the Intoximeter 3000 to be accurate
since these alcohol measuring devices are maintained on a
daily basis through a computerized system.
Number 091
REP. DAVIDSON asked how quickly you must act in order to
ensure an accurate reading.
SGT. CRAWFORD explained how and when the different drugs
peak in the body's system after ingested. In short, the
longer you wait, acquiring search warrants, the less likely
you will be able to quantify the drug. The sooner the
better.
REP. JEANNETTE JAMES questioned HB 445, wondering if it
allows blood and urine to be taken from persons involved in
a serious accident.
Number 160
DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER said if they refuse to submit, then
they become guilty, just as they would with the implied
consent. It would basically transpose the current implied
consent for those involved in motor vehicle accidents. He
said "implied consent" would be the same as the implied
consent if you did not take the intoximeter. He said the
revocation and loss of license, and a Class A misdemeanor
applies. It does not really get you to the point where you
actually draw blood and urine. There still has to be
another step.
Number 164
REP. JAMES asked whether or not blood and urine could be
taken, in a case where the person is hospitalized, as part
of the hospital admission, or would permission be required.
She was under the impression that if someone was involved in
a serious accident, those tests should be able to be taken
without going through the arrest procedure. She wondered
just what this bill would do.
Number 180
DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER pointed out that page 8 addresses the
person that is unconscious or in the hospital. It is true
that blood and urine would be drawn as part of the hospital
procedure, but was another matter for the hospital to turn
over blood and urine to a law enforcement person, so there
would still be other steps to go through.
Number 204
DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER stated that AS 11.81.900(b), which is
incorporated into page 8, line 25, defines serious injury.
Number 225
REP. GREEN motioned to pass HB 445 out of committee with
attached fiscal notes. The bill was moved with no
discretion or objection.
HB 460 - NO BAIL FOR FELONS WITH PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS
Number 233
CHAIRMAN PORTER introduced REP. MIKE NAVARRE, Prime Sponsor
of HB 460, representing District 9.
REP. NAVARRE described HB 460 as a companion bill to SB 228,
which proposes to provide that if a person has been
previously convicted of a sexual offense, in all degrees
(not just first degree, as is now the case), they will not
be allowed bail if convicted a second time. They will be
required to stay in jail through the appeal process. This
is a way of getting a little tougher on these types of
criminals without costing the state a lot of money.
Number 305
REP. GREEN stated that the fiscal notes would be zero, since
the person would be going to jail after conviction anyway.
Number 320
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that these are all post-bail conviction
considerations, not pre-conviction. In post-conviction,
credit is given for the time spent in jail, to apply to your
sentence.
Number 330
REP. NORDLUND added the fact that those types of offenses do
not normally result in overturning a sentence through the
appeal process, so it is more efficient for the felon to
start doing their time right away.
Number 352
REP. NAVARRE stated that constitutionally, the burden of
proof has already shifted; the person has been found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
Number 356
REP. PHILLIPS asked, if in the event this bill does not
pass, would the sex offender registration bill be plugged in
just as soon as the ruling was made in the case?
Number 360
REP. NAVARRE replied that, yes, that could help, because the
felon would be required to register in other states as well.
Number 385
REP. JAMES moved that HB 460 be passed out of committee with
a zero fiscal note recommendation. The bill passed with no
objection.
The House Judiciary Committee was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
HB 376 - NOT HEARD
HB 340 - NOT HEARD
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|