Senate committee hears bill to expand specialty court eligibility and let more courts establish programs

Justice of the peace Kendra Burchi, testifying for the judiciary, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Senate Bill 17 would make “targeted small improvements” to Nevada’s specialty‑court statutes to increase access to treatment courts and to allow justice, municipal and district courts to establish substance‑use courts.

Burchi said Nevada has about 64 specialty courts that focus on mental health, substance use, veterans issues, competency, developmental disabilities, trauma‑informed programs for women and youthful offenders. She described specialty courts as an evidence‑based intervention that reduces recidivism, saves taxpayers money and addresses the underlying causes of criminal behavior. “They reduce recidivism,” she said, “they save taxpayers money and they protect our communities.”

Section 1 would modify the statute governing pre‑prosecution diversion to expand who is eligible for consideration, while preserving the existing procedures for judicial determination and maintaining eligibility limits (for example, the bill does not make felonies eligible for pre‑prosecution diversion). Sections 2–4 make clarifying changes for substance‑use treatment courts, including allowing courts to conditionally permit evaluations (such as psychosocial or substance‑use assessments) so courts can determine whether an individual qualifies for participation.

Supporters included behavioral‑health providers, prosecutors’ and public‑defender offices’ staff and people with lived experience. Esther Quillisi, CEO of Vitality Unlimited, described treatment as often requiring multiple episodes of care and said the bill “recognizes that substance use disorder is a chronic relapsing disease.” Grant Denton, who said he is a product of diversionary court, urged expansion of access and praised the programs for helping him recover and reunify with family. Paloma Guerreiro of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office and Jennifer Raines of the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office also spoke in support, citing reduced collateral consequences and alignment with Washoe County’s sequential intercept model.

Opponents — chiefly the Nevada District Attorneys Association and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association — said they strongly support specialty courts in concept but opposed expanding pre‑prosecution diversion. Nevada DAs’ representative John Jones said the association’s principal concerns were separation‑of‑powers implications (that the bill would intrude on prosecutorial charging discretion), the bill’s breadth (allowing certain offenses the DAs consider inappropriate for pre‑prosecution diversion) and the potential for long delays before adjudication. Jones also cited Marsy’s Law’s right to timely disposition as a concern for victims.

Burchi and other witnesses said many of the statutory procedures and victim‑rights protections remain unchanged and that proponents are willing to work with opponents on eligibility concerns. The committee did not take a final vote on SB 17 at the hearing.