SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
February 03, 2005 Hearing Room 343
1:00 p.m. Tapes 24 - 25
Corrected 10/26/05
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sen. Ginny Burdick, Chair
Sen. Charles Starr, Vice-Chair
Sen. Roger Beyer
Sen. Floyd Prozanski
Sen. Vicki Walker
MEMBER EXCUSED: Sen. Charlie Ringo
Sen. Doug Whitsett
STAFF PRESENT: Joe O'Leary, Counsel
Dale Penn, Committee Assistant
MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD & WITNESSES:
Introduction of Committee Measures – Work Session
SB 124 – Public Hearing and Work Session
Craig Prins – Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
SB 266 – Public Hearing
John Hummel – Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
Michael T. Dugan – Deschutes County District Attorney
SB 273 & SB 274 – Public Hearing
Justin Baxter – Oregon State Bar
Jim Markee – Oregon Collectors Association
Cindy Robert – NACM
Sybil Hebb – Oregon Law Center
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 24, A |
||
|
007 |
Chair Burdick |
Calls the meeting to order at 1:17 p.m. Opens a work session in order to introduce committee bills. |
|
INTRODUCTION OF COMMITTEE MEASURES – WORK SESSION |
||
|
010 |
Joe O’Leary |
Committee Counsel. Reads LC 210, 1263, 1806, 2068 for introduction (EXHIBITS A - D). |
|
018 |
Sen. Starr |
MOTION: Moves LC's: 210, 1263, 1806, 2068 BE INTRODUCED as committee bills. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 4-0-3 AYE: In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye. EXCUSED: 3 - Prozanski, Ringo, Whitsett |
|
025 |
Chair |
Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. |
|
025 |
Chair Burdick |
Opens public hearing on SB 124, relating to sentencing guidelines. |
|
SB 124 - PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
030 |
Craig Prins |
Executive Director, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. Submits testimony and additional material in support of SB 124 (EXHIBITS E – I). Discusses the sentencing guidelines for crimes. |
|
070 |
Prins |
Comments on the amended crimes with special focus on recent court cases (i.e., Blakely). Talks about Exhibits G & H. |
|
093 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks about the furthest right column on Exhibit H that mentions “no action.” |
|
096 |
Prins |
Replies that no action will be taken in those circumstances. Explains recent legislative bills relating to sentencing guidelines with Exhibit H. |
|
135 |
Prins |
Describes section 2 and 3 of SB 124, and how these areas will assist in streamlining the sentencing guidelines process. |
|
166 |
Sen. Beyer |
Wonders how the Blakely decision affects this. |
|
175 |
Prins |
Replies that the Blakely decision only affects aggravating factors. |
|
188 |
Sen. Beyer |
Asks about the fiscal impact of a decision that allowed a small amount of aggravating sentencing. |
|
195 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Comments on how we could go back to regular sentencing guidelines, and how it could affect the cost factors. |
|
204 |
Prins |
Mentions a recent court case interpreting the Blakely case and how it affects the court system in Oregon. |
|
228 |
Chair Burdick |
Reviews a bill coming into the Senate Judiciary that was the result of a work group with district attorneys and law enforcement which will focus on the sentencing guidelines. |
|
232 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Questions if this bill is mainly a housekeeping bill. |
|
240 |
Prins |
Replies that this bill is “pretty mundane.” |
|
246 |
Sen. Beyer |
Inquires about Exhibit G and the wording. |
|
260 |
Prins |
Responds that he will find the information. |
|
284 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks if a bill does not show up on Exhibit H from the charts on Exhibit G, then it did not pass in the 2003 Legislative session. |
|
308 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes Public Hearing on SB 124 and opens a work session. |
|
SB 124 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
310 |
Sen. Starr |
MOTION: Moves SB 124 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 6-0-2 EXCUSED: 2 - Ringo, Whitsett |
|
315 |
Chair Burdick |
Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. SEN. BEYER will lead discussion on the floor. |
|
322 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes work session on SB 124 and opens a public hearing on SB 266. |
|
SB 266 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
326 |
Joe O’Leary |
Counsel. Reads description of SB 266, relating to conviction of third felony sex offense. |
|
340 |
John Hummel |
Attorney, Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. Reads testimony in support of SB 266. Describes the common situation of a defendant in court cases concerning third felony sex offense. |
|
390 |
Hummel |
Defends the purpose of the bill. |
|
450 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks if the role of the defense attorney is to go beyond what they learn from their client and try to figure out if they have previous sex abuse charges. |
|
459 |
Hummel |
Replies that yes, the attorney is supposed to do that, but states that prosecutors have greater resources to accomplish background checks. |
|
TAPE 25, A |
||
|
033 |
Chair Burdick |
Wonders about the withholding of information from the defense. |
|
039 |
Hummel |
Expresses that this is not about withholding of information, in these situations, the prosecutors don’t have the information until after the trail begins. |
|
044 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks about the number of individuals defending themselves. |
|
046 |
Hummel |
Responds that he doesn’t have the numbers. |
|
049 |
Sen. Beyer |
Inquires about other courts, not involved with sex abuse cases, being required to share maximum sentencing possibilities with the defendant. |
|
055 |
Hummel |
Asserts that crimes with a sentence contingent on previous convictions are usually not told to the defendant prior to the sentencing. |
|
068 |
Sen. Beyer |
Asks what would occur if the information was uncovered after the trial was started. |
|
077 |
Hummel |
Replies that in those circumstances, a delay would normally be given to allow both prosecutors and defendants to analyze the new information. |
|
086 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Inquires about several different scenarios, and asks what would occur in these situations after this bill passed. |
|
100 |
Hummel |
Analyzes the different scenarios and provides information on what would happen if SB 266 was passed. |
|
110 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Wonders if the court, at arraignment, should inform the defendant of any presumptive life sentencing guidelines. |
|
129 |
Hummel |
Responds that the OCDLA would support such a requirement. |
|
145 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Inquires about the scope of this problem. |
|
150 |
Hummel |
Replies that it is not a huge problem. |
|
160 |
Michael T. Dugan |
District Attorney, Deschutes County. Reads testimony in opposition to SB 266 (EXHIBIT J). Discusses presumptive sentences, and the possibility to have the entire guidelines challenged under the Blakely decision. |
|
229 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks about Measure 11 cases. |
|
232 |
Dugan |
Points out that they know if a case is Measure 11 at the onset. |
|
250 |
Sen. Prozanski |
States that it should be the responsibility of the judge at arraignment to express the maximum penalty. |
|
261 |
Hummel |
Counters it should not be the judge’s responsibility at arraignment. |
|
281 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes public hearing on SB 266. Opens public hearing on SB 273 and SB 274. |
|
SB 273 & SB 274 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
289 |
Joe O’Leary |
Counsel. Describes SB 273 and SB 274, relating to providing exemptions for debtors. |
|
309 |
Justin Baxter |
Oregon State Bar, Consumer Law Section. Testifies in support of SB 273 and SB 274 (EXHIBITS K & L). Discusses the need for alterations to judgment and bankruptcy exemptions from over a decade of appreciation and inflation in the market. |
|
375 |
Baxter |
States that those items usually taken in lawsuits are usually needed to go to work and provide for families (cars, homes, etc.). Expresses that these items need to be kept from settlements. |
|
420 |
Baxter |
Mentions tax breaks for children, and the possible tax liabilities and credits. Comments that those refunds and breaks should go towards taking care of the family, as opposed to paying off debt. |
|
458 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks when the last time these exemptions were looked at or altered. |
|
460 |
Baxter |
Declares that it was July 1993 the last time these numbers were changed. |
|
470 |
Chair Burdick |
Inquires as to the numbers, and how the Oregon State Bar came up with them in comparison to other states. |
|
TAPE 24, B |
||
|
020 |
Baxter |
Replies with statistics and examples. |
|
030 |
Sen. Walker |
Asks about the national scale for Oregon’s affordable housing rates. |
|
032 |
Baxter |
Responds that both the prices and ability to buy factor into the scenario. States that Oregon is around the middle of the road in these respects. Mentions that location also has a great impact on this scenario. |
|
052 |
Sen. Walker |
Wonders if Congress intended for an individual to have to move to a lower priced area when they declare bankruptcy. |
|
060 |
Baxter |
Declares that he does not believe so, and that Americans are entitled to a “fresh start” if their liabilities get out of control. Discusses how Congress put factors into place to assist this. |
|
080 |
Sen. Walker |
Inquires about bankruptcy being a “windfall.” |
|
088 |
Baxter |
Responds that under bankruptcy law, creditors have many rights they can petition against the debtors. Goes on to talk about the rights of both creditors and the individual requiring bankruptcy. |
|
091 |
Sen. Walker |
Wonders about the allotment under the bill that goes towards purchasing a vehicle. |
|
112 |
Baxter |
Expresses that the three thousand dollars allotted to buying a new car allows the debtor to purchase a solid, cheap car, not a luxurious automobile. |
|
120 |
Sen. Walker |
Desires the committee to know that there are balancing factors in these situations. |
|
130 |
Sen. Beyer |
Inquires about the child tax credit scenarios being cumulative. |
|
150 |
Baxter |
Replies that yes, it is cumulative. |
|
155 |
Sen. Beyer |
Wonders about the tax credit limit for the children. |
|
164 |
Baxter |
Discusses the tax credit limit. |
|
179 |
Jim Markee |
Oregon Collectors Association. Testifies in opposition to SB 273 and SB 274. Talks about the balancing act involved with bankruptcy. Offers information as to why the numbers have not been altered in the last few years. |
|
240 |
Markee |
Discusses the automobile example earlier, and how raising the rates would be acceptable to his client, but not as high as the current bill proposes. |
|
280 |
Markee |
Talks about the confusion over the new child tax credits in SB 274. Explains the financial illiteracy in this country, and how it sometimes is appropriate to ask individuals who are bankrupt due to living over their means to live below it after they declare. |
|
314 |
Cindy Robert |
National Association of Credit Management (NACM). Testifies in opposition to SB 273. Discusses the comparison between leaving college and bankruptcy. Explains that nobody is entitled to a fresh start, and that you should pay back what you owe. |
|
367 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Reaffirms that it is going to be a policy decision for this committee whether anything needs to be adjusted from this point on. Inquires if it is possible to look at those numbers again, and increase the exemptions to a point that is agreeable to both parties. |
|
410 |
Sen. Walker |
Asks for a work group to be assigned to address these issues. Believes that negotiations could occur between both groups. |
|
485 |
Chair Burdick |
Approves such a workgroup; asking them to focus on SB 273. |
|
TAPE 25, B |
||
|
053 |
Sen. Beyer |
Inquires about clarification on SB 274, relating to the additional child support credit. |
|
065 |
Sybil Hebb |
Oregon Law Center. Provides written testimony on SB 273 (EXHIBIT M). |
|
069 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes public hearing on SB 273 and SB 274. |
|
085 |
Chair Burdick |
Adjourns the meeting at 2:42 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
EXHIBIT SUMMARY