Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Youthful Offender Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary conference committee narrows H 642 language to ensure victims can be heard in youthful-offender proceedings
Summary
A Senate Judiciary conference committee agreed to revise H 642 to clarify that courts must seek and consider victim impact statements both when assessing youthful-offender status and at disposition hearings; staff will update the draft to cross-reference subsection (b) and circulate a final conference version.
The Senate Judiciary conference committee agreed Tuesday to revise the conference draft of H 642 so courts explicitly seek and consider victim impact statements both when deciding youthful-offender status and at disposition hearings, a legislative staff member said.
The committee's staff member walked lawmakers through the disputed language and said the draft coming back from the Senate needed a small fix and a clearer cross-reference. "The court shall ask if the victim is present and, if so, whether the victim would like to be heard regarding the motion or disposition," the staff member said, adding that "if [the victim] is not present, the court shall ask for the victim's expressed, either orally or in writing, views regarding youthful-offender status or disposition." The committee agreed the language should ensure victims' views are considered whether offered in person or in writing.
Committee members discussed wording in lines the House had passed that address whether a judge, after hearing the matter, may determine youthful-offender status. Members said their intent is not to limit a judge's discretion; rather, they want victims to have the opportunity to provide impact statements at the consideration hearing and at disposition. One member noted the judge ultimately decides whether youthful-offender status is appropriate.
Lawmakers and staff debated how to avoid creating a requirement that a victim must present the same statement at both hearings. The committee settled on an editorial fix: replace the final sentence of subdivision 2(a) with a reference to subsection (b), so the draft will state that the court shall consider a written victim statement "as required by subsection (b) of this section." That change is intended to make clear the court’s duties — including asking whether a victim is present and accepting written or oral statements when the victim is absent — apply in either context without forcing duplication.
Staff told the committee they would prepare the revised conference draft and circulate it later the same day. The chair said the committee will present the final conference language to the House once the edits are complete.
The meeting did not record a formal vote; staff and members indicated the change was editorial and procedural steps would follow to finalize the conference draft.
