Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Sentencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proponents confirm goal to classify vehicular homicide and assault as crimes of violence
Summary
At a March 6 review hearing, proponents of initiative 2025-250 confirmed they intend to classify vehicular homicide and vehicular assault as crimes of violence subject to mandatory sentencing provisions and discussed whether both reckless driving and DUI-based offenses are meant to be covered.
Proponents told legislative counsel staff on March 6 that initiative 2025-250 aims to classify vehicular homicide and vehicular assault as crimes of violence subject to certain mandatory sentencing provisions.
Julianne Jensen, legislative counsel staff, opened the hearing by explaining the statutory review requirement. Conrad Immel of the Office of Legislative Legal Services summarized the measure’s major purpose as classifying vehicular homicide and vehicular assault as crimes of violence subject to mandatory sentencing.
Proponent Suzanne Tehary confirmed that both increased penalties and crime-of-violence classification were intended. Staff raised technical questions about whether both methods of committing those offenses should be covered: vehicular homicide and assault can be committed by reckless driving or by driving while under the influence (the latter a strict‑liability offense). Tehary agreed both means were intended to be included but indicated they were not trying to make reckless-driving into strict liability beyond existing law and would review drafting to ensure the text reflects that intent.
Staff also flagged existing sentencing adjustments in current law — for example, enhanced mid‑range sentences where the convicted person was fleeing after committing another felony or when the victim was pregnant — and asked whether those special sentencing ranges should differ from the general crime-of-violence sentencing scheme. Staff noted the crime-of-violence sentencing modification under section 18.1‑340.110 could be higher; proponents said they would review whether to add clarifying language.
The hearing then moved on after staff and proponents discussed technical drafting points. The proponents indicated they would review the sentencing-range interactions and clarify any necessary language before finalizing the initiative text.
The review-and-comment hearing continued with a group review of related initiatives after a short recess and administrative restart.
