Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate backs measure to help small counties pay indigent defense costs for state correctional facilities
Summary
Senate Bill 97 would pool state and local contributions to cover indigent defense costs in counties hosting state correctional facilities. Sponsors said retroactivity would cover ongoing litigation; critics warned of fiscal strain and questioned why larger counties are not treated similarly. The measure passed the Senate on Feb. 13, 1995.
Senate first substitute Bill 97, presented by Senator Blackcomb, would create a program to help smaller counties that host state correctional facilities share the high costs of indigent defense for state inmates. The sponsor told the Senate the Glasgow case and recent inmate homicide-related trials exposed significant unanticipated legal costs for small-county budgets.
Under the bill’s structure as explained on the floor, participating local counties would contribute a local assessment (described on the floor as 0.001 of assessed value) and the state would provide a matching or supplemental contribution. Sponsor testimony estimated the program’s limited application would raise roughly $157,000 from local contributions for the affected counties and that a statewide expansion would carry an estimated fiscal note in the millions.
Senator Blackcomb described the bill as a narrowly targeted remedy for counties with state correctional institutions that cannot absorb extraordinary defense costs, citing a current trial where legal costs for four defendants were estimated at $400,000–$600,000. "What we have is... a very severe problem here that we can't handle," he said, urging the Senate to approve the measure.
Opponents pressed several issues: why only smaller counties should receive assistance while larger counties with facilities (Salt Lake County was cited) absorb costs; whether the $250,000 initial appropriation in the bill would be sufficient; and whether the bill’s retroactive language (the sponsor indicated the measure would be retroactive to July 1, 1994) would address current legal expenses. Senator McAllister warned that although appropriations were included, the bill might require supplemental funds later if trials and legal bills escalate.
Roll call on the floor recorded the first substitute of Senate Bill 97 as carried with 27 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. Sponsors said implementation details and the distribution of funds would be worked out administratively if enacted.
What’s next: With passage on the floor, sponsors expect the bill to proceed to the reading calendar and to the appropriations process where fiscal details — including any additional supplemental requests — would be addressed.
