SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

 

March 31, 2005                                                                                                   Hearing Room 343

1:00 P.M.                                                                                                                      Tapes 90 - 91

Corrected 10/26/05

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:         Sen. Ginny Burdick, Chair

Sen. Charles Starr, Vice-Chair

Sen. Roger Beyer

Sen. Floyd Prozanski

Sen. Doug Whitsett

 

MEMBER EXCUSED:          Sen. Charlie Ringo

Sen. Vicki Walker

 

 

STAFF PRESENT:                 Joe O'Leary, Counsel

Dale Penn, Committee Assistant

 

 

MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD:

                                                SB 528 – Public Hearing

                                                SB 914 – Public Hearing and Work Session

                                                SB 919 – 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 90, A

003

Chair Burdick

Calls the meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. and opens a public hearing on SB 528.

SB 528 – PUBLIC HEARING

011

Joe O’Leary

Counsel.  Describes SB 528 relating to the Blakely vs. Washington Supreme Court decision.  Introduces the -2 amendment (EXHIBIT A).

045

Chair Burdick

Discusses the US Supreme Court decision on Blakely.

070

Jennifer Lloyd

Oregon Department of Justice.  Submits a summary of key provisions and testifies in support of SB 528 (EXHIBIT C).  Talks about her role in the Blakely work group.  Details that SB 528 is a broad attempt to curtail certain changes resulting from the Blakely decision.

110

Lloyd

Explains what SB 528 will accomplish upon passage.

150

Lloyd

Discusses subsections 5 and 6 of SB 528.

180

Lloyd

Stresses that the Oregon District Attorneys Association has withdrawn conflicting legislation.

218

Chuck French

Multnomah County District Attorney’s office.  Testifies in support of SB 528.  Describes the goals in mind for the work group meetings. 

259

French

States that there have been relatively few cases within his district that would fall under these criteria since the Blakely decision.

282

Chair Burdick

Asks how the district attorney’s office has dealt with these cases around the state.

290

French

Replies with information on how the district attorney’s office has dealt with these cases.

305

Chair Burdick

Inquires about the Blakely influenced cases.

307

French

Provides information on these particular cases.

313

Chair Burdick

Inquires what the regular process is for these cases.

315

French

Stresses that since there have been so few, the regular process is not truly known yet.

336

Chair Burdick

Wonders about certain offender-related decisions; inquires about prejudicial matters.

342

French

States that the same jury is used to hear these types of instances, and that different cases would have to be completed.  Reiterates the fact that there is currently no regular process to deal with these cases.

370

Sen. Prozanski

Asks about offender-factor cases being bifurcated out.

382

French

Offers information as to the current process.

397

Sen. Prozanski

Comments on the bifurcated process used by Texas.

413

French

Reports on the mechanism used in proceeding with these cases.

427

Bob Holman

Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.  Testifies in support of SB 528 and offers his opinion on the Blakely work group.

447

Chair Burdick

Inquires about the Kansas plan dealing with the Blakely decision.

448

Holman

Describes the Kansas methods.

470

Chair Burdick

Wonders about the work group decisions.

472

Holman

Talks about the methods approved by the work group.  Continues the discussion on the results of passing SB 528; focuses on the possible problems that might arise. 

TAPE 91, A

032

Jean Ann Quinn

Senior Criminal Law Analyst, Oregon Judicial Department.  Discusses the reasoning behind the opinions the work group has presented. 

052

Chair Burdick

Asks how many cases are under this category currently.

054

Quinn

Responds that she isn’t fully aware of the numbers.

058

Holman

Illustrates an anecdote dealing with a recent court case.

070

Chair Burdick

Introduces the -3 amendment (EXHIBIT B).

075

O’Leary

Describes the effects of the -3 amendment (Exhibit B).

117

Chair Burdick

Inquires about the -3 amendment dealing with a jury trial.

120

O’Leary

Responds with information on an individual’s rights to a jury trial.

135

French

States his concern over section 21 relating to a case being remanded to a trial court at a later date.

168

O’Leary

Explains the remand issue for the committee.

176

Chair Burdick

Expresses her opinion on a possible amendment.

185

French

Discusses another possible amendment.

196

Lloyd

Talks about the waiver of a jury trial and other remands.

213

Chair Burdick

Raises a concern over the remand issue.

220

French

Expresses his opinion on the possible amendment.

231

Lloyd

Talks about section 2, subsection 2 dealing with the prosecution giving notice before relying on aggravating factors in the case. 

269

Chair Burdick

Inquires about plea bargaining.

282

French

Reiterates the dispute during the work group dealing with this issue.  Talks about the method Kansas has employed to address the problem.

316

Lloyd

Describes the definition of “enhancement fact” and stresses her problems with the issue.

360

Holman

States the reasoning behind keeping the drafting language broad.

375

French

Declares that the reasoning behind these decisions is meant to curb the amount of appeals and reversals.  Addresses the problem of constitutionality.

425

French

Continues the discussion on the problems concerning constitutionality.

446

Chair Burdick

Asks if a district attorney or judge would use this as a method to employ consecutive sentencing.

458

French

Replies with information on consecutive sentencing factors.

TAPE 90, B

019

Holman

Discusses the right to waive a jury trial.  Offers his concerns over stretching this issue out.

030

Chair Burdick

Inquires about the possibility of amending the bill to have broader language.

034

Holman

Agrees that it is a possibility and continues the discussion on consecutive sentencing.

047

Sen. Prozanski

Declares that the conservative approach to dealing with this issue may be the best idea.  Talks about the reasoning behind this bill.

072

French

Advocates for caution when dealing with this issue; it will be determined constitutional or not down the road.

093

Sen. Prozanski

Discusses the problems with the federal and state laws conflicting.

105

French

Comments on consecutive sentencing issues being decided on by a judge later on down the line.

121

Chair Burdick

Stresses that you won’t run into problems with constitutionality by bringing too many issues in front of a jury.

122

French

Agrees with that assessment.

125

Sen. Prozanski

Reminds the panel that they can come back later to deal with this issue.

138

Chair Burdick

Desires the bill to be written broadly enough to deal with certain issues.

148

Lloyd

Discusses section 2 and the possible conflicts with current law.

165

Chair Burdick

States that prior convictions have been deleted from consideration under Blakely.

175

Lloyd

Replies with information on this issue.

194

O’Leary

Details the current Supreme Court decisions relating to this issue.

221

French

Talks about the recommended changes to the bill.

235

Lloyd

Discusses the sentencing methods.

255

Judge Michael Marcus

Multnomah County Trial Judge.  Testifies in a neutral stance on SB 528.  Comments on the Blakely decision and how SB 528 will address the issues currently facing the courts.

312

Chair Burdick

Asks for his opinion on the amendments facing the committee.

314

Marcus

Discusses several possible amendments to the current bill.

355

Marcus

Continues his discussion on possible amendments and problems with SB 528.

395

Marcus

Explains his major point with the Blakely bill (SB 528) dealing with sentencing guidelines.  Expresses that sentencing guidelines do not seek to reduce crime or prevent recidivism.

445

Chair Burdick

Closes the public hearing on SB 528 and opens a public hearing on SB 914 & SB 919.

SB 914 & SB 919 – PUBLIC HEARING

460

Joe O’Leary

Counsel.  Describes SB 914 relating to directing the Department of Corrections to establish a uniform presentence report form that require report writers to provide analysis of the means to reduce future criminal behavior and to determine the availability of programs and treatment to the offender, and SB 919 relating to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission studying the feasibility of incorporating consideration of reduction of criminal behavior and crime rate into sentencing guidelines.  Introduces the -1 amendment to SB 914 and the -1 amendment to SB 919 (EXHIBITS D & E).

TAPE 91, B

030

Judge Michael Marcus

Multnomah County Trial Judge.  Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 914 & SB 919 (EXHIBITS F & G). 

080

Marcus

Addresses the problems with recidivism rates in Oregon.

125

Marcus

Talks about the -1 amendment for SB 914.

165

Marcus

Details the necessity of SB 914.  Comments on an Oregon statute dealing with the criminal justice commission.

212

Marcus

States that Crime Victim’s United did not sign on to the bill until the amendment was drafted.

220

Sen. Whitsett

Asks about a fiscal impact.

225

Marcus

Replies that there is no current fiscal impact.

241

Sen. Whitsett

Inquires about procedures being added to some courts, and thereby increasing costs.

245

Marcus

Responds with information on this issue.

265

Tim Sylwester

Department of Justice.  Testifies in support of SB 914 & SB 919.

243

Craig Prins

Executive Director, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.  Testifies in support of SB 914 & SB 919.

268

Chair Burdick

Closes the public hearing on SB 914 & SB 919 and opens a work session on SB 914.

SB 914 – WORK SESSION

242

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT SB 914-1 amendments dated 3/30/05.

 

 

VOTE:  5-0-2

EXCUSED:  2 - Ringo, Walker

275

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

276

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves SB 914 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

 

 

VOTE:  5-0-2

EXCUSED:  2 - Ringo, Walker

278

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

SEN. BURDICK will lead discussion on the floor.

281

Chair Burdick

Closes the work session on SB 914 and opens a work session on SB 919.

SB 919 – WORK SESSION

284

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT SB 919-1 amendments dated 3/22/05.

 

 

VOTE:  5-0-2

EXCUSED:  2 - Ringo, Walker

287

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

289

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves SB 919 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

 

 

VOTE:  5-0-2

EXCUSED:  2 - Ringo, Walker

290

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

SEN. BURDICK will lead discussion on the floor.

292

Chair Burdick

Closes the work session on SB 919 and adjourns the meeting at 2:50 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

  1. SB 528, -2 amendment, staff, 19 pp
  2. SB 528, -3 amendment, staff, 19 pp
  3. SB 528, Summary of Key Provisions, 1 p
  4. SB 914, -1 amendment, staff, 2 pp
  5. SB 919, -1 amendment, staff, 1 p
  6. SB 914, written testimony, Michael Marcus, 1 p
  7. SB 919, written testimony, Michael Marcus, 1 p