Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Domestic Violence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill tightening jail time and assessments for repeat domestic battery offenders
Summary
The Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice voted to pass House Bill 2192 out of committee after adopting two amendments: one requiring domestic violence offender assessments earlier and one removing the word "consecutive" so time served counts toward a 90‑day requirement.
At a meeting of the Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice (date not specified), members voted to pass House Bill 2192 favorably out of committee after adopting two amendments that change how the state handles some domestic battery offenders.
Jason Thompson of the Revisor's Office told the panel HB 2192 targets second‑ and third‑time domestic battery offenders by requiring a specified amount of jail time before release and by limiting or prohibiting work release. The bill as introduced applies the 90‑day custodial requirement to repeat offenders and restricts work‑release options, Thompson said.
Supporters and several legislators pressed for two technical changes. Representative Neely offered an amendment to require a domestic violence offender assessment on a first offense "as a condition of any grant of probation, suspension of sentence or parole or of any other release," and to require the offender to follow the certified program's recommendations unless the court orders otherwise. Representative Carmichael questioned whether the amendment removed judicial discretion; reviser Jason Thompson and other members answered that the bill follows the current statutory phrasing used for later offenders and that the court retains discretion only with respect to complying with program recommendations, not with ordering an assessment.
A second amendment, offered by Representative Carmichael, removed the word "consecutive" from the 90‑day requirement so that time a defendant spent in jail before sentencing would be credited toward the 90 days. Carmichael said proponents had previously agreed that credit for time served was intended and the strikeouts correct that drafting issue.
Representative Smith raised concern about judicial authority and collateral consequences, asking, "Are we taking a little bit of authority away from the judge?" Smith said she was worried about penalties such as fines and the effect on families if judges lose discretion. Representative Neely and others said the bill is intended to increase accountability for repeat offenders while including the assessment requirement and other interventions.
After amendment debate, Representative Neely moved to pass HB 2192 as amended; Representative Schweizer seconded. The committee voted to advance the bill. The record specifically notes favorable votes by Representative Schlingen Seippen, Representative Carmichael and Representative Martinez; the chair announced the bill "passes" and that the committee would return to other business. The committee did not record a full roll‑call tally in the transcript excerpt.
The bill now proceeds as a committee‑approved measure; committee members suggested small technical floor amendments could be offered if additional clarification is needed before final passage.
