Committee hears bill to require magistrates to consider prior sex‑offense convictions when setting bond

House Bill 2389, introduced by Rep. Essex on behalf of Rep. Williams, drew emotional proponent testimony Wednesday as the House Committee on Judiciary considered whether judges should be required to consider prior convictions for certain sexual and violent offenses when setting bond.

Jason Thompson of the Revisor's Office told the committee HB 2389 adds a new subsection (p) to the bond statute that directs the magistrate, when a defendant is charged with enumerated offenses such as aggravated sexual battery, indecent liberties with a child, and related crimes, to consider prior convictions of the same or similar offenses, including out‑of‑state convictions, when setting appearance bond and release conditions.

Representative Laura Williams, who identified herself as a victim of an assault, described the case that prompted her support. She said the defendant's arrest followed DNA matches and a multi‑agency response; the suspect had a prior conviction at age 17 for an attempted sexual offense and was initially set at a $750,000 bond. "I believe that bail should be denied to anyone who has previously been convicted of a crime of rape or sexual battery," Williams said, but told the committee the bill as drafted gives judges discretion to consider priors rather than mandating denial of bail on first appearance.

Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe told the committee prosecutors' data support heightened recidivism among offenders identified through assault‑kit testing: he said data from the PAKSI initiative showed 42 percent of offenders identified in tested kits committed additional sexual offenses and 93 percent committed other crimes. "These individuals do reoffend at a higher rate," Howe said, urging the committee to pass HB 2389 as a "common sense public safety measure."

Committee members asked clarifying procedural questions: whether "magistrate" in the bill is a narrow magistrate role or the broader statutory term (the Revisor confirmed the statute uses a broad definition that includes district judges and other officers); whether judges currently consider criminal history (Howe said judges routinely have criminal history information but the bill emphasizes priors for the listed offenses); and how far back convictions can be considered (Howe said databases such as NCIC display an individual's entire qualifying history, subject to expungement rules).

No vote was taken Wednesday on HB 2389. The committee was provided extensive written proponent testimony and was told other witnesses were on the S drive but not printed for privacy reasons.