Senate committee hears AB 91 to create second‑look parole reviews for long sentences; advocates and prosecutors clash

CARSON CITY — The Senate Judiciary Committee heard hours of testimony on Assembly Bill 91, a measure to authorize "second look" parole reviews that would allow the state Board of Parole Commissioners to reconsider certain long sentences after defendants have served a statutory minimum portion of their terms.

Assemblywoman Erica Roth (Assembly District 24) presented AB 91 to the committee, saying the bill authorizes "the state board of parole commissioners to grant second place review" for some people convicted of category A and B felonies once they have served a minimum portion of their aggregate sentence. She said the provision is intended to align Nevada with national "second look" movements and to provide a mechanism to reassess lengthy sentences as people age and, supporters contend, rehabilitate.

Nut graf: AB 91 would create a formal application and hearing pathway for certain incarcerated people to seek parole review after serving a defined minimum of their sentence (commonly described during the hearing as 10 years of the aggregate minimum), expand existing juvenile‑related parole eligibility from crimes committed under age 18 to those committed under age 25, and apply some provisions retroactively to offenses committed on or after Jan. 1, 2026; supporters called it a narrowly circumscribed review process, while prosecutors called it a wholesale erosion of truth in sentencing.

Key provisions described by Roth and supporters include: - Eligibility for a "second look" review for individuals convicted of category A or B felonies who have not been sentenced to death and who have served not less than 10 years of their minimum aggregate sentence; applications may be filed by prisoners, attorneys, family members or others and the parole board must verify eligibility within 15 days and schedule a hearing for eligible applicants. - If denied, applicants must generally wait 24 months before reapplying unless the board or Department of Corrections requests otherwise; the board's review is to be conducted "in the same general manner as other parole hearings." - Section 3 would expand parole eligibility for those convicted before age 25 (up from the current 18 for certain provisions); section 4 would make sections 1 and 3 retroactive to offenses committed before, on or after Jan. 1, 2026.

Supporters from criminal‑justice reform groups, formerly incarcerated people and victims' advocates testified in favor, saying the bill creates a discretionary, evidence‑based pathway for review without guaranteeing release. "This is not a get out of jail free card," said Yesenia Moya (phone testimony), adding the bill creates "a process and avenue for our people, who have served decades to show how they've grown." Multiple witnesses cited research about maturation and rehabilitation, and some testified that the policy is bipartisan in many other states.

Opponents mounted a pointed challenge. John Jones of the Clark County District Attorney's Office said AB 91 would "destroy truth in sentencing" and argued the bill would make life without parole effectively meaningless because, after 10 years, some individuals could become eligible for review even where a judge or jury had imposed life terms. Jennifer Noble, representing the Nevada District Attorneys Association, gave examples of convicted child sexually abused and murder cases that, under current sentencing, carry extremely long or life terms; she said those victims would be forced to testify repeatedly if the bill allowed review after 10 years.

Law enforcement associations — including Las Vegas Metropolitan Police and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association — also testified in opposition or joined the DA's concerns, warning the bill could produce repeated victim notifications and reduce the predictability of sentencing.

Parole board chair Chris Derico and the Department of Public Safety's Parole and Probation chief testified in neutral. Derico said the parole board already hears cases and that if the legislature authorizes these reviews, it would make the board "the most powerful parole board in all of The United States" because it would be empowered to entertain reviews for many serious offenses. Parole and Probation noted a fiscal note was being updated and that additional operational costs could apply.

Committee outcome: The hearing closed after testimony; no committee vote on AB 91 was recorded during this meeting.

Why it matters: AB 91 would create a formal, legislatively authorized pathway for post‑conviction review by the parole board, potentially affecting people serving long sentences for serious felonies, including some violent offenses. Supporters argue it provides a mechanism to right disproportionate sentences and respond to rehabilitation; opponents argue it undermines judicial sentencing decisions and victim expectations.

Ending: The committee closed testimony and moved to public comment; the bill will return to the committee or floor later in session as lawmakers determine whether to advance it further.