[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6614110,"mediaKeyId","2865226-4767bc74dc1330b777954cbb9a7f399d","parentId",2865226,"title","Committee hears bill to remove statute‑of‑limitations for wrongful‑death civil suits and apply change retroactively","audioSeconds",416,"startMs",1610000,"endMs",2026000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2865226-4767bc74dc1330b777954cbb9a7f399d&start=1610&end=2026","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2865226-4767bc74dc1330b777954cbb9a7f399d/thumbnail_1610000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6614110/Nevada/Committee-hears-bill-to-remove-statuteoflimitations-for-wrongfuldeath-civil-suits-and-apply-change-retroactively","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6614110-f1cb240f927a63d8364bce97adac0a07/orig.mp4?Expires=1770557597&Signature=kZ4ui22jVBE9XHV4oMBSCo6RIqxXd10NLqwYNq72U8S8CN3J8IjKue3gKl7abfiuUZCKXIpwVBaYltGP2pvqcwpktkJg6o9M4ONGNZ2U7IN4Wg6oE1TV~hJDMC8Td0U1HWQA31JmdI4-AUc7uk~QiOknqWXFhHDkimZsG1tVd1hukBjuVzXiHw6P9rPA~5sOkHxaYaUMqVve1wV5jHqJ50cPoOh0uGLGzKox0uSTyP5tOkkpSAGoYnFiIiryovfnqmXOIwyCY8brefRPEMVRlZwO1l~7TRl4q6YMkhbrToZoVWAW8afhNqqrRVsv-0IPPXKue8YJL~9xomaP8KA7bA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada Legislature","date","2025-04-03T17:55:49.997Z","article","CARSON CITY — The Assembly Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Assembly Bill 489, a proposal that would eliminate the civil statute of limitations for wrongful‑death lawsuits and make that change retroactive so families could bring claims for deaths that occurred in the past.

Martin Fitzgerald, representing the bill sponsors, summarized the measure: \"Section 1 and 2 of the bill ends the statute of limitations for wrongful death. And section 3 removes the statute of limitations retroactively so victims of wrongful deaths that have occurred before the passage of this bill are able to bring civil action against the perpetrators of their death,\" he told the committee.

Why it matters: Supporters said the existing two‑year civil filing window is too short for many modern homicide and human‑trafficking investigations, where toxicology, DNA, digital records and interstate investigations can take years. Families and advocates told the committee that when a body is missing or when investigations are complex, the current limitation denies them a civil avenue to hold perpetrators accountable.

Testimony and examples

Victims' families and anti‑trafficking advocates described cases where a missing relative or a classified death prevented families from filing suit within two years. Glendine Grant, mother of missing woman Jessie Foster, told the committee her daughter vanished in Las Vegas in 2005 and remains missing; she described the financial and health toll on her family and urged lawmakers to allow families more time to seek civil accountability. \"It's been 19 years and under the current law we would be prevented from seeking justice because of that statute of limitations,\" Grant said.

Gerald Fineman, a retired prosecutor with decades of experience, described investigative realities that can delay final criminal findings — complex toxicology, collision reconstruction, tracing controlled substances to distributors, staged crime scenes and slow appellate processes — and argued the bill would let grieving families pursue civil remedies without prejudicing prosecutions.

Support from advocacy groups

The Nevada Women's Lobby, Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, domestic violence and trafficking survivor organizations, and other victim‑advocacy groups testified in support, describing cases where families must wait for criminal investigations and should not lose a civil remedy while they wait. The Nevada Department of Corrections and other agencies did not register opposition; presenters said they would continue discussions with stakeholders including the Resorts Association.

Legal and technical points

Presenters and counsel said the bill includes a technical conceptual memo posted to the legislative information system to implement the retroactivity correctly in light of case law. Counsel and proponents said the civil clock in current law begins on the date of death, not the date a body is recovered, and the proposed change would remove the two‑year bar for wrongful death claims.

Outcome and next steps

The committee heard substantial emotional testimony and technical argument in favor of AB489; no opposition callers were recorded in the excerpt. The sponsor asked for the committee's support and said groups would provide written testimony. The committee closed the hearing and will continue deliberations and stakeholder conversations.

Ending note: Supporters framed AB489 as a narrow, victim‑centered fix to ensure families of homicide and trafficking victims can seek civil accountability when investigations and evidence collection require more time than the statute currently allows.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","4/3/2025 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary","oneSentenceSummary","AB489 would eliminate the civil statute of limitations for wrongful‑death claims and make the change retroactive; supporters said it would let families of missing and trafficking victims pursue civil accountability, opponents did not register in person, and the committee closed the hearing with the sponsor urging support.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6614114,"Assembly committee hears bill to allow second‑look parole reviews for people sentenced as young adults",5075,1292000,6367000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2865226-4767bc74dc1330b777954cbb9a7f399d&start=1292&end=6367","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2865226-4767bc74dc1330b777954cbb9a7f399d/thumbnail_1292000.jpg","/articles/6614114/Nevada/Assembly-committee-hears-bill-to-allow-secondlook-parole-reviews-for-people-sentenced-as-young-adults","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6614114-6015600f1be0914eebc9eae7610a9946/orig.mp4?Expires=1770557597&Signature=ePYSmOsIeEYhoC3t8SYelYDw2DwesjoOumQJSUy2~pCOIp~YbaxFHZWAt6DPVo2sHX2dRVC6HrRnOXh703SJ3Cr0ofQYeN5KaHBZqi7ao6fc-nqsAoPdp1jh1oMTFi32OUNAD~cb-w83lh5gbkhpd5~Ff~tVLPcfroLIyXSM2Jm-s1Wr5INKnoWK3h646F0QahUBVPI9IsNHazMTKjIa-80yqVU1JunaRrQT992D7rwQkUtV-DibbWfwoCj2g6Jz-zkWqvEIZqeSnOK760L5a9d02iffeU9E9SUGJgWgYeAYKftAh~i5wDvCENPVLzlxRnrjD80B3tQDOBHkKWKzYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","CARSON CITY — The Nevada Assembly Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Assembly Bill 91, a proposal to allow the Board of Parole Commissioners to conduct \"second look\" reviews for people who received long prison sentences when they were young.

Assemblywoman Erica Roth, who presented the bill, told the committee the measure would authorize the board to reconsider certain category A and B felony sentences after people have served long minimum terms and demonstrated rehabilitation. \"Second look review provides an opportunity for the Board of Parole Commissioners to reevaluate lengthy prison sentence after individuals have served a significant portion of their time and have remained committed to their rehabilitation,\" Roth said.

Why it matters: The bill would formalize a review process aimed at determining whether extremely long sentences remain necessary for public safety after offenders have aged and participated in in‑custody programming. Supporters framed it as consistent with evolving scientific understanding of brain development and a tool to address excessively long sentences; opponents said it risks retraumatizing victims and could undercut truth‑in‑sentencing expectations.

Key provisions described in the hearing

- Eligibility thresholds: Under the amendment described by the presenter, individuals convicted of category A felonies would be eligible for second‑look review only if they are not serving life without parole or a death sentence, do not pose a significant risk to public safety, and have served at least 25 years of their sentence. For category B felonies the proposed threshold is at least 15 years served and a determination that the person does not pose a \"significant and articulable risk to public safety.\" (Presenter: Erica Roth)

- Age expansion: The bill expands an existing parole‑eligibility pathway that previously applied to people convicted under age 18 so that it applies to people convicted before age 25 (for offenses committed on, before, or after Jan. 1, 2026), allowing the board to consider developmental differences among \"emerging adults.\" (Presenter: Erica Roth)

- Application and review process: Applications may be filed by prisoners, attorneys, family members or representatives; the board must verify eligibility within 15 days and schedule hearings for eligible applicants. If a petition is denied, the applicant generally must wait 24 months before reapplying, unless the board authorizes an earlier filing. The amendment makes listable review factors optional (e.g., age at offense, institutional conduct, programming completion, victim impact statements) to preserve board discretion.

- Victim notification and participation: Supporters stressed that victims would receive notice and an opportunity to be heard consistent with \"Marcy's Law\" (victims' rights) and existing parole procedures. \"There is no scenario in which an individual will go up for parole review and a victim will not be informed or have an opportunity to provide input to the board,\" Roth said.

What supporters said

Representatives of public defender offices, victim‑advocacy and reentry organizations and several formerly incarcerated people supported AB91 in testimony. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender's Office said the bill \"recognizes this\" idea that people are \"more than the worst thing we've ever done.\" Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender's Office and others described 15 and 25 years as long sentences and emphasized opportunities for rehabilitation while incarcerated.

Civil society groups also testified in support or neutral testimony: Return Strong, the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, and national advocates for second‑look policies cited research on brain development and the potential public‑safety gains from targeted resentencing or parole reviews for those who have matured and engaged in rehabilitation.

What opponents said

The Nevada District Attorneys Association, law enforcement groups and victim‑advocates testified in opposition or raised concerns. Jennifer Noble, representing the District Attorneys Association, warned that repeatedly reopening sentences would force victims to \"relive these events\" and said victims deserve \"some semblance of peace.\" Law enforcement representatives gave examples of serious child abuse and homicide cases and expressed concern about earlier eligibility for offenders convicted of severe crimes.

Agency and neutral perspectives

Chris DeRico, chairman of the Board of Parole Commissioners, testified in neutral and described the kinds of offenses that fall into category A and B and the practical effect that the bill would have on parole timelines. Don Southworth of the Department of Corrections said the bill would have a significant effect on population levels but noted other jurisdictions and federal policy (First Step Act) have implemented second‑look mechanisms.

Committee questions and clarifications

Committee members pushed on how the bill balances victim rights, how often a denied applicant could reapply (generally every 24 months), whether the proposal would prompt judges to impose different sentences, and the relationship to geriatric parole already in statute. Legal counsel and the presenter replied that the design preserves board discretion, that geriatric parole contains carve‑outs that made it narrowly applicable, and that this bill was modeled procedurally on Nevada's existing parole processes.

Direct quotes (selected)

\"Second look review provides an opportunity for the Board of Parole Commissioners to reevaluate lengthy prison sentence after individuals have served a significant portion of their time and have remained committed to their rehabilitation,\" Assemblywoman Erica Roth said.

\"There is no scenario in which an individual will go up for parole review and a victim will not be informed or have an opportunity to provide input to the board,\" Roth said, citing victims' notification requirements.

\"The language of this bill gives the parole board the power and the authority to override a sentence imposed by a district court judge,\" Chris DeRico, chairman of the Board of Parole Commissioners, said in neutral testimony to explain the practical effect of earlier parole review.

\"Lawful sentences should not be second guessed every 2 years. Nevada victims deserve some semblance of peace,\" Jennifer Noble of the Nevada District Attorneys Association said in opposition.

Outcome and next steps

The committee held an informational hearing with extensive testimony from supporters, opponents and neutral witnesses; no final committee vote on AB91 was recorded during the session. The bill remains under consideration; further committee action or floor scheduling was not recorded in the transcript excerpt.

Ending detail: The hearing record captures diverse viewpoints: supporters emphasized rehabilitation and scientific evidence about brain development through the mid‑20s, while opponents stressed victim impacts and public‑safety risk assessments. The committee and staff indicated they would consider technical language and potential guardrails during future drafting and deliberations.","AB91 would authorize the Board of Parole Commissioners to hold \"second look\" reviews for people sentenced to long terms, expand eligibility based on age and set eligibility thresholds and procedures; the Judiciary Committee held a lengthy hearing with supporters, opponents, and neutral witnesses.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6614118,"Judiciary committee unanimously advances three work‑session bills, rolls one to Monday",278,973000,1251000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2865226-4767bc74dc1330b777954cbb9a7f399d&start=973&end=1251","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2865226-4767bc74dc1330b777954cbb9a7f399d/thumbnail_973000.jpg","/articles/6614118/Nevada/Judiciary-committee-unanimously-advances-three-worksession-bills-rolls-one-to-Monday","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6614118-29d6e27d934397416e93ac527c11dbaa/orig.mp4?Expires=1770557597&Signature=br~TTamXWaGWhrpRJ0AzptA6cL8wdW0v9sWNEaHG4dicPE47ifbthCUarSKK2uKahaOQ8Xb9xB2CaqoeRiGk7FIt5alP4amXZP0ionaS9GfokIEyKcBgD2QxBcMGVTgHNvMYrkrGhVbzO400RhjH86Pc4s9E50LpoWPQKWvXjTnGBBBemua1K4HzdogwNCO99lE~3WmY1OzuZIB5npe92ZOE9CUVbsGAggJ-XR1-QMQf2cikARKfROKlgrsQGnHKGJ9YyPKHAxffmorDRmmGk7r~4ieby8BwPXcyz9KgNhC7nNSnXuNIP3Cu-eLuJj9EyGQYqMiyFMl9v44F2hwoxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nevada Assembly Committee on Judiciary unanimously approved amendments and moved three bills forward in a short work session, while postponing one item for further consideration.

The committee advanced Assembly Bill 149, Assembly Bill 150 and Assembly Bill 192 after members moved to adopt amendments and \"do pass\" floor statements. Assembly Bill 197 was rolled to Monday for a later work session.

Why it matters: The measures address distinct areas of state policy — research access and funding for cannabis industry data (AB149), expanded protections for tribal judges and their personnel (AB150), and changes to real property law including procedures for easement relocation (AB192). Committee approval with floor statements means the measures will move toward consideration on the Assembly floor with the committee’s recommended language.

What the committee did and what changed

Assembly Bill 149: The committee considered an amendment proposed by Rhianna Durrett, director of the Cannabis Policy Institute at UNLV, to limit appropriated funds to direct research costs — salary, stipends, project travel and essential materials — and to exclude indirect costs and overhead. Committee staff introduced the bill as a measure that would require the Cannabis Compliance Board to adopt regulations to share information and data for research relating to cannabis and the cannabis industry. Vice Chair Marzola moved to amend and \"do pass;\" the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The committee assigned the floor statement to Assemblymember Carter.

Assembly Bill 150: Sponsored by Assemblymember Orentlicker, AB150 would extend existing prohibitions on threatening or intimidating certain public officials to include tribal judges of federally recognized tribes (all or in part within Nevada) and would add definitions and confidentiality protections for tribal judicial personnel. The committee adopted an amendment submitted by Assemblymember Orenlikar that broadened protections and standardized terminology. Vice Chair Marzola moved to amend and do pass; the motion passed unanimously. The committee assigned the floor statement to Assemblymember Orenliker.

Assembly Bill 192: Sponsored by Assemblymember Backus, AB192 would enact the Uniform Easement Relocation Act and the Uniform Mortgage Modification Act. The Real Property section of the State Bar (represented by Mackenzie Warren Kaye) proposed amendments to revise and define terms, clarify relocation procedures, expand responsibility for relocation expenses, and adjust notice and recording requirements. Vice Chair Marzola moved to amend and do pass; the motion passed unanimously. The committee assigned the floor statement to Assemblymember Backus.

Assembly Bill 197: The committee announced it would \"roll\" AB197 to Monday and take that work session item up at that time.

Votes and next steps: For the three measures taken up in the work session, members voiced \"aye\" and the motions to amend and do pass were recorded as passing unanimously; the committee chair signed the floor statements as noted above. Each bill will move forward with the committee’s floor statement and amendments for further action on the Assembly floor.

Context and supporting detail: Committee staff introduced the three work‑session items sequentially at the start of the meeting and described the proposed amendments (see committee transcript). No substantive debate or public testimony was recorded during the work session votes; each motion to amend and do pass was moved by Vice Chair Marzola and seconded by other members, and each passed unopposed.

Less urgent details: The committee reminded presenters and testifiers of time limits for later hearings and provided public‑comment call‑in information at the start of the session.","The Nevada Assembly Judiciary Committee approved amendments and advanced three bills in a consent work session and postponed consideration of a fourth until Monday.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears bill to remove statute‑of‑limitations for wrongful‑death civil suits and apply change retroactively

Assembly committee hears bill to allow second‑look parole reviews for people sentenced as young adults

Judiciary committee unanimously advances three work‑session bills, rolls one to Monday