Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to make it easier for juries to infer intent in utility-theft cases
Summary
The JGO committee voted April 10 to advance HB 24-99, which would allow juries to draw a permissive inference of intent when illegal meter connections are found; sponsors and the Attorney General's office said the change aims to help prosecutors hold account those who divert costs to honest ratepayers.
The House JGO committee voted April 10 to advance House Bill 24-99, which would amend the Commonwealth's theft-of-utility-services statute to allow juries to draw a permissive inference of intent in certain cases involving illegal water or electric connections.
Counsel Bradley, speaking for the Attorney General's Office, told the committee the bill was drafted with the AG to address prosecutorial difficulties when illegal meter tampering is discovered. "This bill establishes a structure for the court and for a jury to understand how to draw that inference," he said, adding that juries would retain the ability to acquit if evidence shows a defendant was unaware of the connection.
Supporters framed the bill as a consumer-protection measure to reduce subsidization of service by honest customers. "Who pays for all of those illegal taps? We all do," Representative Marissa Flores said, arguing the change would give prosecutors and juries the tools needed to hold offenders accountable.
Representative Palacios also urged support, citing recent vandalism and repeat offenders and calling for stronger enforcement to protect communities and reduce costs passed on to customers.
The committee first dissolved into a Committee of the Whole to hear legal explanation and discussion. After returning to the committee, Floor Leader Marissa Flores moved to adopt a committee report recommending passage; the motion was seconded and carried. HB 24-99 was approved by the committee to be reported to the House for consideration in the next session.
What the bill does and limits
According to the Attorney General's explanation, the bill does not create a mandatory presumption of guilt; it creates a permissible inference the jury may draw when evidence (for example, an illegal connection and lack of account payments) supports that conclusion. Bradley emphasized that the jury can decline to draw the inference if evidence suggests the defendant was unaware of the connection.
Next steps
The committee approved formation of a committee report for the bill and set it to proceed to the House calendar for further consideration. Committee members said they will follow up with Senate colleagues and stakeholders as the bill moves through the legislative process.
