Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would update preliminary‑hearing rules, remove court‑reporter requirement and address 'dangling' misdemeanors
Summary
The Administrative Office of the Courts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Senate Bill 20 would modernize preliminary‑hearing procedures: allowing AV recording in lieu of a court reporter for certain hearings, clarifying transcript generation and retention, and proposing to move misdemeanors charged with felonies to district court (a contested change).
John McCormick of the Administrative Office of the Courts presented Senate Bill 20 as a cleanup bill to clarify how preliminary hearings are conducted in justice courts and to resolve several practical issues raised by courts, litigants and practitioners.
McCormick said Section 1 would prevent a case that includes an unconditional written waiver of a preliminary hearing from being returned to justice court for further proceedings, thereby placing the case under district‑court jurisdiction. Section 2 would eliminate a statutory requirement that a preliminary hearing in a potential death‑penalty case be reported by a court reporter and instead allow audio‑visual recording, consistent with how most Nevada trial courts record proceedings. The sponsors provided a friendly amendment permitting a non‑certified person to prepare a transcript from the recording upon request and setting a five‑year retention period for the recording.
Section 3 — the most contested provision — would require that misdemeanors charged in the same information or indictment with gross misdemeanors or felonies be disposed of in district court rather than remain in justice court. Multiple stakeholders, including the Nevada District Attorneys Association, Clark County Public Defender’s Office and Washoe County Public Defender’s Office, opposed Section 3. DAs said they could not identify a workable statutory scheme to move those misdemeanors to district court without creating separation‑of‑powers issues, administrative burdens and adverse effects on adjudication timelines. Defense offices and Clark County judges said existing local practices (bifurcation and status checks) handle the problem without shifting routine misdemeanor supervision to district courts.
Opponents also raised concerns about Section 1’s proposed treatment of conditional versus unconditional waivers and urged preservation of district‑court discretion under NRS 171.208 to remand cases to justice court for good cause. On Section 2, defense offices asked the committee to confirm that daily transcripts and visual recordkeeping remain available for capital preliminary hearings and expressed concern about relying on audio alone for evidentiary clarity.
McCormick said the AOC is continuing to work with stakeholders and judges of limited jurisdiction to refine language and to find agreed solutions on the “dangling misdemeanor” issue. The committee did not take final action on SB 20 at the hearing.
