Committee considers AB88 to give judges discretion to return youth cases to informal supervision

Washoe County Public Defender staff presented Assembly Bill 88 to the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying the bill would let judges weigh victim input, evaluation reports and risk assessments before deciding whether a youth’s case should be handled informally rather than through formal adjudication and probation.

Angela Knott, representing the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office, said the bill’s “goal is to let everyone involved in the juvenile’s case share their views on the right level of supervision and consequences for a child. But leave that final decision to the judge, not the prosecutor.” Stephanie Cook, the office’s chief youth defender, told senators that judges would still receive dispositional reports, victim input, mental-health screenings and the Youth Level of Service inventory so they could make an informed decision about supervision.

Catherine Marr, who introduced AB88 to the Assembly, told the committee the measure grew from cases in which first-time youth offenders — including some charged over vape pens — were receiving felony-level filings that placed them in a more formal system than necessary. Marr said the amended language was meant to preserve safeguards: a child would be adjudicated or admit to the alleged acts before a referral back to informal handling, and a judge could order a hearing on the matter if a party did not stipulate.

Clark County Assistant District Attorney Brigid (Bridget) Duffy opposed the current draft, arguing that statutory placement matters and that the language as written could cut victims and prosecutors out of the decision process. “By placing their bill … into chapter 62(c), what it does is it cuts the state, the district attorney, the victim … out of the process,” Duffy said. She also noted that existing law already allows judges to dismiss or refer cases at disposition under NRS 62(e), and she questioned whether moving the provision would create separation-of-powers or notice problems for victims under Nevada’s victims’ rights law (Marsy’s Law).

Committee members pressed both sides on statutory construction and on whether a judge’s authority under the proposed amendment would require a plea, a disposition hearing, or a specific notice process. Sponsors said the bill’s conceptual amendments were designed to respond to prosecutors’ concerns by clarifying that a child would admit to unlawful acts or a hearing would be held, and by preserving the ability for the case to come back to court if informal handling failed.

Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office spoke in support from the public gallery; no callers testified in opposition or neutral on the public line during the hearing. The committee closed the hearing on AB88 after questions and additional explanation from sponsors. No committee vote on AB88 was recorded in the transcript.

Ending: Sponsors indicated they had circulated updated conceptual amendments in response to opposition and asked to continue discussions; prosecutors asked for statutory changes to be re-drafted into the placement they consider proper to preserve procedural safeguards for victims and prosecutorial oversight.