SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

 

February 25, 2003                                                                                               Hearing Room 343

8:00 a.m.                                                                                                                         Tapes 39-40

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:         Sen. John Minnis, Chair

Sen. Ginny Burdick, Vice-Chair

Sen. Ted Ferrioli

Sen. Charlie Ringo

Sen. Charles Starr

Sen. Vicki Walker

 

 

STAFF PRESENT:                 Craig Prins, Counsel

Jane Bodenweiser, Committee Assistant

 

 

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD:           Informational Meeting “Report of the Advisory Committee on

                                                Genetic Privacy and Research” by Astrid Newell, MD

                                                SB 58 Public Hearing and Work Session

                                                SB 107 Public Hearing

                                                SB 122 Public Hearing and Work Session

 

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 39, A

001

Chair Minnis

Calls the meeting to order at 8:12 a.m. Reminds the committee of the Supreme Court lunch tomorrow, February 26, at 11:30 a.m.  Introduces Dr. Ted Falk and Dr. Astrid Newell.

INFORMATIONAL MEETING

015

 Dr. Ted Falk

Advisory Committee on Genetic Privacy.  Submits material and presents an overview of the functions of the committee and the issues involved (EXHIBIT A).

044

Dr. Astrid Newell

Advisory Committee on Genetic Privacy.  Gives a basic introduction to genetics and DNA.

119

Dr. Falk

Discusses the historical background of genetic privacy in Oregon.

219

Dr. Newell

Talks about research and clinical issues addressed.

290

Dr. Falk

Summaries the committee’s recommendations and future issues.

488

Chair Minnis

Asks who the legislative members were.

491

Dr. Newell

Replies, Sen. Courtney, Rep. Shetterly, Sen. Nelson, and Sen. Walker

512

Chair Minnis

Recesses the committee at 8:40 a.m.

 

 

 


 

TAPE 40, A

035

Chair Minnis

Reconvenes the meeting at 9:00 a.m. and opens a public hearing on SB 58 that expands circumstances under which colorable claim of error standard is used for purposes of filing notice of appeal in criminal case.

SB 58 PUBLIC HEARING

040

Peter Ozanne

Executive Director, Office of Public Defense Services.  Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 58 (EXHIBIT B).

077

Chair Minnis

Closes the public hearing on SB 58 and opens a work session.

SB 58 WORK SESSION

088

Vice Chair Burdick

MOTION:  Moves SB 58 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation and be placed on the CONSENT CALENDAR.

 

 

VOTE:  5-0-1

EXCUSED:  1 - Sen. Ringo

090

Chair Minnis

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

SEN. BURDICK will lead discussion on the floor.

092

Chair Minnis

Closes the work session on SB 58 and opens a public hearing on SB 107.

SB 107 PUBLIC HEARING

094

Craig Prins

Introduces SB 107 that requires that defendant show substantial prejudice from delay of trial before court can dismiss accusatory instrument on basis of failure to provide speedy trial.

103

Jonathan Fussner

Department of Justice.  Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 107 (EXHIBIT C).

170

Vice Chair Burdick

Asks if this bill would have made a difference in the outcome of the Harberts case.

178

Fussner

Replies that it would not have made a difference.

191

Vice Chair Burdick

Wonders how difficult it is for the defendant to show prejudice.

195

Fussner

Explains that it is difficult.

203

Vice Chair Burdick

Wonders how the Supreme Court got involved.

212

Fussner

Explains the process.

235

Vice Chair Burdick

Asks if cases can be re-filed after they are dismissed.

259

Fussner

Replies that cases are generally not re-filed.

265

Chair Minnis

Asks how the court reached the constitutional conclusion in the Harberts Case.

273

Fussner

Explains the process.

304

Sen. Walker

Wonders how courts might rule on the prejudice requirement.

313

Fussner

Remarks that case law has developed around the constitutional requirement.

345

Sen. Walker

Asks if there is a standard time period for a trial.

346

Fussner

Explains there are guidelines issued by the courts, but they are not binding by law.

387

Steve Dingle

Oregon District Attorney’s Association (ODAA).  Testifies in support of SB 107.

TAPE 39, B

055

Vice Chair Burdick

Asks the process for showing prejudice.

060

Dingle

Gives a typical case scenario.

081

Sen. Walker

Believes that unreasonable delay is a prejudice.  Asks if this bill is intended to become the norm.

092

Dingle

Responds that this bill should become the standard.

128

Sen. Ferrioli

Asks what a judge would do if there is no public defender available for a defendant who cannot afford his own defense.

154

Dingle

Explains the proposed procedure in Marion County.

168

Chair Minnis

Advises that a lawyer can be compelled by the court to defend someone.

186

Sen. Ringo

Says as a lawyer, he would not be comfortable in criminal court.

210

Dingle

Explains that Marion County has adopted a continuing early disposition program.

226

Sen. Ringo

States the belief that delay itself causes prejudice.

232

Dingle

Says this is true.

230

Sen. Ringo

Contends there needs to be some time limit so that a defendant can have some finality.

259

Dingle

Believes that this does exist with the constitutional standards already established. Says the fact in reality is that delay benefits the defendant.

335

Susan Russell

Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.  Submits testimony and testifies in opposition to SB 107 (EXHIBIT D).

412

Chair Minnis

Asks if a statutory provision to a speedy trial is a right.

380

Russell

Says it is a statutory right.

389

Chair Minnis

Asks the difference between a statutory and a constitutional right.

420

Russell

Clarifies the difference.

432

Chair Minnis

Wonders where “substantially prejudiced” is defined in case law.

433

Russell

Responds she is not aware of a definition in case law.

426

Chair Minnis

Asks for an example of when a court has “purposefully delayed” a case.

440

Russell

Says that language comes from the Harberts case. 

TAPE 40, B

018

Russell

Continues testimony in opposition to SB 107.

067

Chair Minnis

Wonders if the word “substantial” should be removed.


 

070

Russell

Believes that it would still be inadequate protection for a defendant’s statutory right to a speedy trial.

114

Sen. Ferrioli

Talks about a community standard of reasonableness. 

157

Russell

Points out two problems with this legislation.

178

Chair Minnis

Asks for further clarification of the “substantial prejudice” issue.

182

Dingle

Addresses the prejudice issue.

212

Sen. Ringo

Questions the pre-trial release condition imposed.

214

Dingle

Says there are travel passes.

222

Sen. Ringo

Contends that inconvenience and prejudice are two separate issues.

228

Dingle

Agrees, but says inconvenience is considered a part of prejudice.

246

Chair Minnis

Closes the public hearing on SB 107 and opens a public hearing on SB 122.

SB 122 PUBLIC HEARING

255

Erik Wasmann

Oregon Department of Justice.  Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 122 that expands crime of robbery in third degree to include activities relating to unauthorized use of vehicle (EXHIBIT E).

275

Rick Wesenberg

Oregon District Attorneys Association (ODAA), Roseburg, OR.  Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 122 (EXHIBIT F).  Discusses an Oregon case that included the taking of an automobile.

351

Sen. Ringo

Asks if these people were prosecuted for kidnapping.

358

Wesenberg

Says, yes, but the jury acquitted them of that charge.

358

Sen. Ringo

Asks what the conviction was.

359

Wesenberg

Says the conviction was robbery in the first degree.

364

Wasmann

Explains why this legislation is needed for clarification.

391

Chair Minnis

Believes this closes a loophole in the law.

396

Vice Chair Burdick

Asks for a clarification of robbery and attempted robbery.

401

Wasmann

Explains the definition.

410

Chair Minnis

Discusses the difference between theft and robbery, and providing proof of either.

459

Chair Minnis

Closes the public hearing on SB 122 and opens a work session.

SB 122 WORK SESSION

460

Vice Chair Burdick

MOTION:  Moves SB 122 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.

 

 

VOTE:  6-0

466

Chair Minnis

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

SEN. RINGO will lead discussion on the floor.

470

Chair Minnis

Closes the work session on SB 122 and adjourns the meeting at 10:00 a.m.

 


 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – Printed material presented by Dr. Ted Falk and Dr. Astrid Newell, 114 pp

B – SB 58, written testimony submitted by Peter Ozanne, 1 p

C – SB 107, written testimony submitted by Jonathan Fussner, 2 pp

D – SB 107, written testimony submitted by Susan Russell, 1 p

E – SB 122, written testimony submitted by Erik Wasmann 2 pp

F – SB 122, written testimony submitted by Rick Wesenberg, 2 pp