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

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.