Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House passes third substitute of HB86, increasing maximum penalties for child-related offenses

Utah House of Representatives · February 13, 2007
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Utah House approved the third substitute to House Bill 86, increasing maximum penalties for a range of child-related sexual offenses and child kidnapping and adding enhanced penalties for repeat offenders; the measure passed 70-2-3 and moves to the Senate.

The Utah House on the floor approved the third substitute to House Bill 86, a criminal-code rewrite that raises maximum sentences for several child-related sexual offenses and child kidnapping and adds enhanced penalties for repeat offenses. Representative Wimmer, sponsor of the substituted bill, said the measure broadens the original language to include provisions addressing child kidnapping and increases penalties where serious bodily injury occurs.

Wimmer summarized the changes: the bill adds an additional five years to the maximum sentence for repeat second- and third-degree offenses such as internet enticement and increases penalties for offenses involving a child to “15 years to life” in cases specified in the bill. He said the measure makes “a repeat child *** offense a life in prison without parole,” and added that judges retain discretion to lower sentences under certain circumstances. Wimmer cited support from prosecutors’ associations and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff as backing for the measure.

A question from Representative Folk focused on whether the language that directs the court to add time makes the increase a mandatory minimum. Wimmer said the directive applies to the maximum sentence (adding to the cap), not to the minimum, clarifying the change affects maximum exposure rather than creating a mandatory floor for every sentence.

Supporters argued the bill fills perceived gaps in sentencing for repeat offenders and addresses prosecutorial concerns; opponents raised questions during floor debate about mandatory sentencing language. After debate and procedural steps to substitute the bill under suspension of the rules, the House voted to pass the third substitute of HB86 on a recorded vote: 70 yes, 2 no, 3 absent. The bill’s title and substituted form will now be transmitted to the Senate for further action.

Action and next step: The House passed the third substitute to HB86; the bill is referred to the Senate for consideration.