Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Diversion Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears clarifying amendments to diversion language in S.109
Summary
On April 3 the Judiciary committee heard testimony from Willa Farrell of the attorney general’s office proposing wording changes to the adult diversion statute and an explicit cross‑reference to precharge diversion in the youth risk‑screening statute to align both with Act 180.
This Thursday morning, April 3, the Judiciary committee took testimony on S.109 addressing several technical changes to diversion statutes.
Willa Farrell, attorney with the Attorney General’s Office, Court Diversion and Pretrial Services, told the committee the bill would replace an undefined phrase and add an explicit cross‑reference to precharge diversion in the youth screening statute. "We’re suggesting just that the phrase be person referred to the program," Farrell said when describing the change to the adult diversion provision on page 1, line 14. Farrell also recommended adding the phrase "precharge diversion pursuant to title 3 section 163" to the youth risk‑and‑needs screening provision on page 13, line 10 to make the statute align with Act 180 from the prior year.
The proposed edits are technical and intended to clarify who the diversion statutes cover and to ensure the youth screening statute explicitly permits referral to precharge diversion programs. Farrell said the change is intended to make clear whether the statutes apply pre‑charge, post‑charge, or both, noting the adult diversion provision as drafted relates to both pre‑ and post‑charge contexts.
Committee members asked no substantive questions on the wording changes at the time of testimony. The chair indicated the committee will take up amendments next week and will continue to refine language as needed.
No formal vote was recorded during this testimony; the discussion was advisory as the committee prepares amendments.
