Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pre Sentence Investigations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs S181 to loosen mandatory pre-sentence investigations for deferred sentences
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on S181, which would remove or limit mandatory pre-sentence investigations (PSIs) for deferred sentences; the Department of Corrections opposed the change citing victim input and supervision needs, while a judge said the bill preserves judicial discretion for serious crimes.
The House Judiciary Committee on April 2 considered S181, a bill that would change when pre-sentence investigation reports are required in deferred-sentence cases.
Kim McManis of the Department of State Attorneys and Sheriffs told the committee that "the purpose of this bill S181 is to remove the requirement for a pre-sentence investigation for deferred sentences," and explained the Senate amendment would leave PSIs in place for listed serious offenses unless both the state's attorney and the respondent agree to waive them.
The bill would make PSIs presumptively unnecessary in many deferred and non-listed cases, but McManis and legislative counsel said courts could still order a PSI at their discretion. Michelle Child (Office of Legislative Council) summarized the statute changes and the proposed amendment, saying the Senate language seeks to clarify that "the court can always ask for a PSI if it feels like it needs that information for sentencing purposes."
The Department of Corrections urged caution. Gary Marvel, deputy director of field services, said one strength of the PSI is that it "allows the court and, uh, really everyone involved to kind of see the person behind the offense," including information about victims, individual risk and recommended supervision conditions. Marvel and DOC staff said operationally PSIs help probation officers plan appropriate conditions and program placement and warned that removing routine PSIs could make it harder to reconstruct relevant background if a deferred case later converts to formal sentencing.
Judicial testimony supported the bill's flexibility while stressing court authority. Tom Zone, chief superior judge, said he "support[s] this bill" because it does not remove the court's ability to request a PSI and will let judges avoid unnecessary reports for low-level misdemeanors. Zone read a list of "listed offenses" that would continue to presumptively require PSIs, including stalking, aggravated domestic assault, sexual assault, murder, kidnapping, human trafficking and other serious offenses, and noted that some existing PSIs are now brief "check-the-box" forms that offer limited utility.
Committee members pressed witnesses on several practical points: the typical content of standard versus sex-offense PSIs (employment, criminal history, family supports, financial circumstances, risk assessments and psychosexual evaluations where relevant), operational timing (DOC staff said PSIs often take roughly 30 days but vary by county), and whether victims' impact statements substitute for the record-level information contained in PSIs. Witnesses said victims can provide statements at sentencing but that a PSI embeds victim perspective in a report the court and supervising officers can use over time.
No formal vote or motion on S181 was recorded in the hearing. The committee concluded testimony and planned to hear one additional witness later in the session.
The committee is expected to consider any technical amendments to clarify that the court retains explicit authority to order PSIs in non-listed cases; the bill as discussed would keep PSIs for serious, listed offenses unless waived by the parties.
