Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice Informal Supervision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
AB 88 would let juvenile judges return youths to informal supervision after a petition is filed
Summary
Assembly Bill 88 would allow juvenile courts in Nevada to dismiss a filed petition and place a youth on informal supervision without requiring the district attorney's consent; supporters say the change restores judicial discretion, while prosecutors warn it removes a public check on charging and disposition for serious offenses.
Assembly Bill 88, presented April 26 to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, would let a juvenile court dismiss a petition and refer a child to informal supervision under NRS Title 5 even after the district attorney files a petition, giving judges discretion to send eligible youth back to nonformal handling.
The change, sponsors said, does not create a new form of relief or alter existing informal-supervision programs; it only permits judges to use that option as a dispositional outcome after a petition has been filed. "But, really, our goal is just to free the hands of the juvenile court," said Katherine Maher, a youth defender with the Washoe County Public Defender's Office.
Supporters told the committee that informal supervision allows juvenile services to work with a youth and family on community-based sanctions — for example, community service, counseling referrals or youth-development programming — without a formal adjudication or the collateral consequences of probation. Maher explained the typical flow: juvenile services investigates and recommends, a petition starts the formal delinquency process, and then the court can either dismiss and refer the youth for informal handling, place the youth on a consent decree or adjudicate and place the youth on probation.
Opponents, including the Clark County District Attorney's Office, argued AB 88 would remove an important check on charging and on decisions in serious cases. "AB 88 is, in general, seeking to remove the voice of the community and victims from charging decisions," said Brigid Duffy, Assistant District Attorney, Juvenile Division, Clark County District Attorney's Office. Duffy said the bill would allow thousands of gross-misdemeanor and felony referrals to be handled without DA review and warned that youths could admit to serious offenses without counsel in an informal process.
Supporters and several callers said the change would reduce unnecessary system involvement for low-risk youth and curb collateral consequences from formal adjudication. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender's Office said the bill "allows judges to have all options on the table to do what's best for the youth." Community callers also testified in support.
Committee members asked whether victims retain notice and participation rights when a case is handled informally, how frequently district attorneys currently decline informal handling, and whether the change would apply to gross misdemeanors and felonies. Presenters said victim-notification rules in NRS apply and that juvenile services can refer cases to the DA for review; they also said cases requiring restitution or showing higher risk historically are referred to prosecutors. Presenters acknowledged the change would affect a narrow set of edge cases where parties and juvenile services might disagree with DA charging decisions.
The committee held a hearing and took testimony; no formal committee vote on AB 88 was recorded in the transcript.
What remains unresolved in the record are numeric counts of how often DAs decline informal handling, and any statutory cross-references that would enumerate which felony categories (A–F) might be eligible; presenters said the statute would not delineate felonies by category in its current drafting.
Votes at this hearing: none recorded. The bill remained at the hearing stage with opportunity for stakeholders to propose clarifying language.
