Joint committee opens criminal‑code review, forms working groups after debate over classification

The Joint Judiciary Committee turned a broad assessment of Wyoming criminal statutes into a concrete work plan on May 13, voting to limit the interim review to Title 6 and to create two stakeholder working groups to examine chapters by even/odd division and propose changes.

Legislative Service Office staff presented a spreadsheet cataloguing criminal offenses and penalties across state law; LSO staff said the tool is sortable and color‑coded but not exhaustive, and it omits some items such as contempt or detailed speeding infractions. Committee members said the spreadsheet highlighted inconsistencies in current penalties and provided an organizing tool for the review.

Stakeholders gave contrasting views. Clayton Milinkovich, a Sublette County attorney speaking for the County and Prosecuting Attorneys Association, and district attorney Sylvia Hackle cautioned that a statewide gradation (class/degree) system could limit prosecutorial discretion, complicate interstate interpretation of grading on out‑of‑state criminal records and make plea negotiations more rigid; Milinkovich noted that 98–99% of criminal cases resolve by plea and said fixed grading could reduce flexibility to tailor outcomes to individual circumstances. By contrast, Patricia Bennett, the state public defender, said a classification system could promote consistency across counties and supported working groups focused on categories such as crimes against the person and property.

Other witnesses recommended focused, surgical work rather than wholesale recoding. Jenny Craig of the attorney general’s criminal division warned that condensing many statutory penalties into classes risks losing the ability to account for individual conduct and circumstances. Victims and family members urged careful attention to child‑abuse and reckless‑driving statutes.

After discussion the committee agreed to the chair’s proposal to split Title 6 into two working groups (evens and odds by chapter), asked each group to include three legislators, two prosecutors, two public defenders, at least one judge, law‑enforcement representation, and a victim‑services representative, and appointed Representative Veil to chair the working group covering even chapters and Representative Chestick to chair the odd‑chapters group. LSO staff agreed to provide trimmed spreadsheets and staff support for the summer working meetings.

The committee recessed for lunch and asked working groups to report back with recommendations and any statutory drafting requests.