Committee advances bill tightening jail time, early assessment rules for domestic battery cases

The Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice on Oct. 27, 2025 advanced House Bill 2,192, a measure addressing sentencing and release conditions for domestic battery offenders, after the panel approved two amendments and passed the bill favorably.

The bill, as amended, requires people convicted of a first domestic battery offense to undergo a domestic violence offender assessment as a condition of any grant of probation, suspension of sentence, parole or other release; it also clarifies that days spent in jail prior to sentencing should count toward a 90-day incarceration threshold previously described in the statute.

Jason Thompson, reviser’s office, briefed the committee on the bill. “You heard a little while ago that is the bill about domestic battery. Specifically it’s about second and third offenders and requiring a certain amount of time be served in jail before they can be released and also limiting or prohibiting in some cases work release,” Thompson said.

Representative Neely offered an amendment to require a domestic violence offender assessment on a first offense and to make compliance with a certified batterer intervention program’s recommendations a condition of release unless the court orders otherwise. “What this would do would require people convicted of a first offense to undergo a domestic violence offender assessment, on the first offense as opposed to later on down the road when it’s kind of a little too late,” Neely said while explaining the amendment.

Representative Carmichael successfully offered a second amendment that removed the term “consecutive” from the 90-day requirement so that time served awaiting plea or disposition would be credited toward the 90 days. Carmichael said the intent was to make clear that “time spent in jail awaiting trial are credited against the eventual sentence” so the 90-day requirement is not unintentionally shortened.

Committee members discussed judicial discretion and collateral effects. Representative Smith said the bill “hits home” for her and questioned removing judicial discretion entirely: “Are we taking a little bit of authority away from the judge? Instead of, it’s going to be automatic? What’s going to happen? He doesn’t have any say.” The committee and staff clarified that the court’s discretion remains with respect to following program recommendations in certain cases; the amendments keep language consistent with how similar language is applied in current law.

Members also noted existing fine ranges referenced in current statute. Representative Barrett asked whether the $7,500 figure mentioned in debate is already part of statute; members confirmed it was not newly added by the amendment and that judges retain discretion within the statutory fine range.

After debate and a voice vote the committee approved both amendments. Representative Neely moved to pass the bill as amended; Representative Schweizer seconded the motion. The committee passed the bill by voice vote and the clerk recorded favorable votes for Representative Schlingen Seapen, Representative Carmichael and Representative Martinez.

The bill now advances from committee as a favorable recommendation for further floor consideration.