Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the H 642 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary conference committee narrows H 642 language to clarify victim impact statements in youthful-offender proceedings
Summary
Conference committee members agreed to editorial changes to H 642 to ensure courts ask whether victims wish to be heard and to clarify that any victim statement presented must be considered in both youthful-offender status and disposition proceedings. The group directed staff to produce a final committee-of-conference draft.
The Senate Judiciary conference committee met May 20 to reconcile House and Senate language in H 642, focusing on when and how victim impact statements may be considered in youthful-offender status and disposition hearings.
Committee members said they reviewed a Senate version that arrived the previous day and flagged ambiguity over whether victim statements could be considered both when the court decides youthful-offender status and later at disposition. A committee member said the House’s intent was to allow victims to testify and present an impact statement at both the status hearing and at disposition.
Hillary Sugar, identified in the transcript as counsel, presented proposed edits to Section 2 of the bill and noted a typographical correction in subsection A. Sugar summarized subsection A as affirming a victim’s right to attend hearings on motions to consider youthful-offender status and on disposition and to present a victim impact statement “expressing the victim’s views concerning the offense.”
Sugar and committee participants reviewed subsection B, which the draft reads to require that “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” and, if the victim is not present, to solicit views orally or in writing and take those views into consideration in ordering youthful-offender status or disposition. The committee discussed whether that language should remain in subsection B or be restated in subsection A in fuller form to avoid confusion.
Members debated wording choices — including whether to use “and” or “or” when listing the two hearings — because different constructions could create unintended statutory obligations (for example, a requirement that victims speak at both hearings to satisfy the rule). One committee member voiced concern that broad language might permit courts to use victim statements in ways that change offender status improperly, and the group discussed limiting consideration to statements presented at the specific hearing.
To resolve the drafting issues, the committee agreed to an editorial fix: reword the end of subdivision 2 so the court’s duty to solicit and consider victim statements is clearly captured in subsection B, and revise subdivision A’s last sentence to avoid duplicative or confusing phrasing. The committee directed staff to prepare a final committee-of-conference draft reflecting that change and confirmed the Senate would present first and the House would close in the committee process.
The committee did not take a formal vote during the session; participants said the agreed editorial changes would be made and circulated in a final draft later that day.
