The Judiciary Committee devoted substantial time on Jan. 14 to a separate bill revising animal‑cruelty statutes, discussing multiple drafting choices that the chair and members described as both technical and policy‑sensitive.

Committee members proposed adding language to ensure certain acts (for example fighting animals or producing visual depictions) are elevated to aggravated offenses when they occur in the presence of or involve a minor. Members repeatedly debated how best to capture digitally altered or artificially generated materials: some favored broad language such as "visual image" or "visual depiction" to encompass manipulated photos or depictions without repeatedly invoking the marketing term "AI," while others warned the topic could require further statutory and prosecutorial review.

A sustained discussion centered on penalties and remedies. Members weighed a graduated penalty structure (different maximums for first and repeat misdemeanors and felonies), whether some felony convictions should carry mandatory consequences (for example temporary or multi‑year bans on possessing animals), and whether courts should retain discretion versus imposition of mandatory ('shall') sanctions. Concerns were raised that mandatory bans could reduce plea flexibility and increase trials, complicating the disposition of animals during protracted litigation.

The committee examined seizure and custody rules: whether a veterinarian must accompany humane officers during seizures, practical limits in rural areas, how to phrase "to the extent practical" so courts and enforcement have guidance, and whether civil venue for custody/forfeiture proceedings would streamline the process or create conflict with ongoing criminal prosecutions. Members discussed burdens of proof for civil forfeiture (preponderance vs. clear and convincing) and asked judges and prosecutors to weigh in on which standard is appropriate when animals are removed from owners prior to sentencing.

Practical implementation questions included who pays for boarding and medical care after seizure, whether prepayment or direct payments to caregivers are preferable to an intermediary registry, how reasonable costs would be calculated and appealed, and how owners could reclaim seized animals if costs go unpaid. Committee members asked legislative counsel to coordinate with the attorney general's office, judges and relevant agencies (for agriculture or livestock exceptions) and to return draft alternatives on the noted decision points.

No final votes were taken. The chair set additional meetings with legislative counsel and invited the attorney general's office and judges to provide input on burden, venue and enforcement language before further committee action.