A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | April 22, 2015 | Committee Room | House: Judiciary I

Full MP3 Audio File

Let the call the House Judiciary Committee to order were are honored to have with us today a page named Ethan Marston what you promised. Sorry Cutter who is our sponsor? And what year are you in school. Require the hand and the both wills. Where do you live? Diap county. And who is your sponsor? I would like have you also. Our Sergeant at Arms Barry Moore, B. H Pal and David Lepton and we all are glad you are here particularly Dino. The first bill we're going to take up is the second bill in your package. It's called Terror Claims, and I believe Rep. Whitmire and Cleveland are here to explain the bill. And I think Rep. Larry Hall is going to make a motion to stop the PCS. All in favor of the motion, let me know by saying aye. Aye. It's the second bill in your package. Terror Claims. Everybody found it? It's bill 371. Everybody got that? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, members of the committee. I will will gratefully explain the bill give a little bit background. I'll try to be brief and that would give a lot, chapter 371 damages liability for support provide the civil cause of action to individuals who are injured by acts of tear but it goes on to charge those who perpetrate solicit aid [xx] so that's a very key measure of it. some people in the act are still working on this bill in September and had a lot of sources that verified the [xx] inside and outside of this complex and also elsewhere to make sure that it wasn't having any unintended consequences so as far the bill itself, if you look at the lines 8 through 16 that [xx] is the federal definition which is been stood up in court multiple times, and then I want also mention, we're in line 17 through 20, it defines terrorist, it goes on beyond those who perpetrate the act, if you think about it, I've taught and been involved with some interesting thing, Homeland Security and terrorist type, counter measures. When you think of a terrorist, you think of the ideology which it comes from, often times in the acts of terror that we see today, and just remember the Boston marathon, just this week, [xx] a couple of just two years ago, what happened there, it's not always the perpetrator but those who enable that perpetrator, and that's what's a very key piece to this. Anyway Tennessee not that we have to every other state that's, of all the states that have enacted very similar measures, they have been, and this was evident in the prior committees bipartisan support Tennessee 33-0 in their Senate 87-3 yesterday in their house Louisiana, Arkansas[sp?] where this item first came about. Kansas and others have found that this concept that provide for civil cost exactly [xx] those who aid in could be a very smarty thing to do, and I ask you to support it. I welcome questions. Representative Clayton you like to make some remarks? No Rep. McNeil. For a motion at the appropriate time. Before you do that, is there anything you want to say about the bill So what will happen if the sober claim, is that correct? Representative Paul I just like to say I have been a fight the ever increasing, this is not [xx] even though [xx] all in

favor the committee substitute, Representative [xx] has offered [xx] to the original bill those in favor of that motion say aye,  those no, the ayes have it. Thank you [xx] The next bill we're going to take up is the first bill in your package AOC [xx] changes Representative [xx] is recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. You want someone to explain for you or you [xx]. No I think I can and am looking forward to catch up and make a lot of good changes that are needed in the starting, so let me quickly go through it. Part one  allow, am sorry seriously. There is it proposed the committee substitute because. You heard the motion all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. The no have it. Thank you. Thank you for keeping me inline. Okay part one allows the state agency to know the entities to act out of receiving copies of their teller report does required them to have the reports are still available, but we can save a lot of trees if we have access to a digital link. Part two allows the custodian sustain publications to release unnecessary publications to stay fore cloth, sometimes we have a volume and those or other materials that we have them in duplicate and it would be nice if we could are clear in the statute at his point whether or not you ca get rid of those that this would allow us to start work base, not say of I have a hard time with this because I was cooperating with you in frauds keep saying, so leases excuse me. Part to read read requires the circus to view your code to report conditional discharges try to reduce the administrative office to evaluating the call and eligibility for the conditional discharge and I'm the NSA needs to know this information just to make sure that records are kept properly and people don't have the second. We want to make the following changes regarding access to advancement of information for law enforcement, employment outreach perfectly and this authorises the AFC which is the administrative of course. To disclose information about advancement which otherwise would be confidential. It's unclear at this point why they may disclose in some areas but not in others, so this brings everything in line to make sure that the statutes are clear. Part five it clarifies that the court may order supervised probation for any conditional discharge or differed prosecution. It's unclear whether the court may order supervised probation when placing a defendant or differed prosecution on differed prosecution or conditional discharge probation. This change express rate would authorize supervised probation for any conditional discharge or differed prosecution. Part six alleviates duplicacy reporting requirements currently imposed on the parts of Superior Court. The statute ordered the clerk of Superior Court to notify of the local consignment facility, pursuing to this section, but, this is unnecessary because the statute already requires the custodian of the local confinement facility, where the defendant is being housed to provide the same information to the commission. And then part 7, eliminates the outdated requirement for Clerks to Superior Court, to report information on Attorney in the County to the Secretary of State, this is as it says on old statute, most Clerks don't to do it any more because all of that is available digitally now, and it's not necessary for us to do that in duplicate. And then the last part 8, eliminate unnecessary printing report, excuse me, this is not the last part.

There is a report that is available online, and there no purpose in ASC having to print that out and provide it when it's available online. So we would like to delete that. Also part nine, we would like to lay the responsibility for setting liability limit on none economic damages with the General Assembly. And that is going to go the office and state budget on managements to do the calculation. There was a problem we had authorised ASC to do that, and they did not have the complete information in order to do that calculation so we'd like to offer the state budget management to do that, are there any questions I have one, is this agency bill?   This is an agency bill from ASC Mr. [xx] would like to say anything regarding the bill [xx] ASC Representative [xx] did a remarkable job, I don't know how I could possibly add to any of that  Thank you sir Representative [xx]   Just quick question I'm asking the first version you had the general family making a determination and changed it to the [xx] what were thinking about? This is a more specific designation the general assembly also didn't have the correct information for the calculation, so it's a better fit Representative Burr. Thank you, Chair. My question [xx] for [xx] section one [xx] [xx] [xx] $700000 [xx] [xx] [xx] come up with [xx] [xx] we just went with permissive language, I think the bill that you guys tone set it with Representative Davies is definitely an additional approach this is just kind of a stater approach Mr. Chairman whether if we gave the people folks ability to opt out how many of them would actually do it on their own and opt out it's kind of a good way to test and see who actually needs it and wants it, but the bill we have no problem with the judicial [xx] that you guys worked on. Representative [xx]. Thank you Mr. Chair question either to the bill sponsor Mr. [xx] and everyone who wants to take a bite, but following up on Mr. Mcneals question what is on partner,  and what is the information the that OSPM does have enable them to do a better job with that calculation? [xx] answer the courts we don't really calculate things based on process in there but not really what to cease job, we just didn't feel comfortable doing that, this has created one or the two reform measures that the general assembly passed in 2010, until when it came about we were like how do you do this why do we even this and instead of making a general assembly passing their law updating the none economic damages with consumer price index, or indexing to whatever the general assembly determines to index non economic damages, we felt that would be a better fit [xx] do CPI calculations all the time. That's [xx] don't do that? Exactly. We do all [xx] any further questions, anyone would anyone like to make a motion on this bill? Representative [xx]   Thank you Mr. Chair. I move for a favorable forward on the PCS for house bill 224 unfavorable to the original.  You've heard the motion, further discussion or debate if not all those in favor let be number say aye, Aye!  Oppose no, and the ayes have it. Thank you very much. Mr. [xx] you want to say anything on that bill? House bill 850 that is

one, two, three, four, five, six on your [xx] Recognize Representative Hager to explain the bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you letting me jump the line, I've got another committee I forgot to get to, it's the way it is around here this time. This bill 850 does four major things, number one it clarifies the current section law that really provide law enforcement authority to the Cherokee  Indians. It also I gives the Cherokee police access to courts to process non Indians who violate the law on travel lands three it sets around three, four one of our existing but three other agency their travel net resources officers provide for law enforcement on travel motor services as independent agencies, and four it give Cherokee marshals access to probation and for all records and traditional [xx] to department public safety premium only, Mr. Chairman I think Representative Bur had the amendment that [xx] public safety was wanting to get them into compliance with their wishes. Representative Bur sent forward the amendment, should amend the bill on page 3 line 42 by rewriting that line to read in prisma the department may enter into a memorandum of understanding addressing the specifics of transferring information to the Cherokee Tribal Courts. representative [xx] you are recognized to explain the bill Thank you [xx] All in favor of the amendment set forth by representative Burrow, those in favor say aye, oppose, no, the ayes have it. Thank you Mr. Chairman provided the fix some issue we had with the [xx] marshals, having access to probation parole records. With that Mr. Chairman, I ask [xx]. I think that Representative Guides, former Representative Guides, would you like to say a word about this bill? Commissioner David Guides, [xx] public safety, we are in support of the bill and we feel like to fix it has been a will take care of concerned that we had, thank you. Representative Bar. I ask for a favour of support [xx] You heard the motion all in favour say "aye" aye all opposed say "no" no the aye have it. Representative Bell are you ready for your bill [xx] Representative McNeal are you ready? I'm ready. Representative McNeal come forward move, the floor is yours.  This is house bill 824 the last bill as the PCS, Representative [xx] to make the motion to have the PCS reports at this time, all in favour let me know by saying aye, AYE, oppose no, Representative [xx] is recognised Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to present this bill to the committee. Ladies and gentlemen there is probably one group of judges in this whole state that we have not offered administrative law of judges, this basically just allows an administrative [xx] to be exempt from the [xx] laws of the state. We actually passed this bill in language, last year from the house [xx] So, we have one administrative judge with us today, excuse me, judge Randon Hay, and I will appreciate your support on this bill. It's a good bill. Representative [xx], before you do, Representative Harry you have a question? Not a question, just to comment on the bill. Yes Sir. Thank you Mr. Chairman, this bill is continuing a trend we require to issue our judicial officials are either safe or have the physical means, physical means to try to defend themselves. It doesn't make any requirement for appropriate and regular training so that they won't be a danger to themselves or others thing that concerns me is. As we go down this road, we make the judicial setting state for the judges, but not set, necessarily for

the public who were there to observe the procedures as well. So I would hope that as we go down the road of making our judicial officials feel safer and have the opportunity to protect themselves individually. We also decide we're going to make our court houses safe so they don't have to rely on personal protection to feel safe in execution jobs. So I'll support the bill, but again I'd certainly would hope that as we look at our court houses and our places of doing public business, we want them to be safe all the citizens not just those who are employed to be judicial officials. Thank you. Rep. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A question I think for staff that doesn't apply specifically to this bill but all bills of this type. When I was reading the bill's summary, it says that in laws like this that among the statutes that, in this case, the administrative law judges would be exempt, is that at the end of the list GS14-288.21 unlawful manufacturing etc of a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon of mass distraction, and I should have known this before on previous similar registration but I thought at least ask the question now, what does it mean to be exempt from that statute? What it mean is that as an individual and [xx] that in the performance of their duty they can still carry their the weapon into the place where the nuclear balance or chemicals weapons are bringing in factories, if it's part of your public bill. Thank you. Any further questions? If not Rep. Park has a motion to on to me. Motion to give favorable report Un favor to the committee service question, further questions or debate? Not all in favor of the motion let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Oppose no ayes have it. next bill we're going to take up is House bill 713, body and dash cam recording. I recognize representative Faircloth this is House bill 713, the fourth bill in the. I believe there's a [xx] I'm sorry. I believe there's [xx] [xx] [xx] the motion, all in favor let me know if you say an aye Aye! [xx] there's no and the Ayes have it. Thank you Mr. Chairman, this is one of the bills that's had a lot of conversation since we've been back here in Raleigh because of some of the very unfortunate incidences that have happened around the country. I want you know that it's my intent that this bill we're talking about here will be paired with a study bill that stakeholders have worked out, and it's intended to be a two from the approach. This particular bill is relatively simple, what it does is simply say that records of criminal investigations means all records or any information that pertains to a person, a group of person as compiled by public law enforcement agencies, for the purpose of attempting to prevent our self violations of the law including information derived from witnesses, laboratory test, surveillance, and we're adding in body worn and in-car cameras, investigators, confidential informants, photographs, and measurements. So we are making the video not mandating anybody where a camera or anything like that, but if they wear a camera and videos produced, and officer on duty who is either has that in his car or on himself, it becomes apart of the records of criminal investigations, and the laws applying to those particular situation supporting would include the product of the camera. The second part of this is if someone is seeking access to video from a law enforcement agency and the decision has been made to release that from a particular incident, the person requesting will need to help the law enforcement agency to locate that these videos they are interested in, so they need to give a time, date and place if you will rather than saying I want all the video that officer Jones was wearing. So that's the reason for putting

some limitations on that that requiring that the person who is requesting video be tailed as close as they can where the video should be in the process so that law enforcement agency can go pull it out. This also allows a chief all enforcement officer or an agency head to decide in case of some unfortunate incident such as the North [xx] incident, if something like that happens and law enforcement head is faced with. What is the impact of this incident on the public. He or she can make the decision probably guided by the governing officials there in his or her town or county make the decision to release that video to the public for the purpose of helping protect the safety of the general public. In so doing the officer who was the subject of that video cannot prove their release, the agency can control this, now this [xx] at this point with this particular language it still leaves the choice of releasing it to the officials who were holding that records of criminal investigations. Now the study bill we are talking about will use this particular action we are using here and study all the other problems for the next year or so. You'll hear about that bill when it gets to you, but I just want you to know that we felt like we had to do this now in case we have an incident that might occur. So I'll be glad to answer any questions. Incidentally, this has the support of the Chiefs' Association, has the support of the Sheriff's Association. Anyone in the public who want to speak on the bill? Anyone have a question? Any member of the committee? Representative Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Looking at the PCS, section two of it seems to add a new that just makes it clear. I think the parts of the section seems to be that the video audio the agency is not required to divulge it. And that seems to be kind of (xx) would be inserted into the statute as G1 it seems to be a little bit of a counter part of what's in the existing statute as H which says similar language. And my question is why do we need a paragragh G1 when we seem to have a similar provision already in statute that would seem to cover it in H. (xx) G1 goes into the specifics as far as the law enforcement agency having to produce when they have hundreds of hours of it sort of goes a step further to specify exactly what law enforcement agencies would require rather than getting a request or a court order that give me this incident, it could be a 15 minute clip from an officer's year of service. And so it just further specifies exactly what the police department would need in order to physically get the materials, as well as, reiterate that the officer can't withdraw consent about that footage. It's really more for law enforcement agency. Follow up question, Mr. Chair. Follow up question. Thank you, so that means be the first part of G1 in the bill, but the second part of G1 seems to do the same thing as the existing paragraph H, so my question is, why is the second half of G1 necessary when we got H? In light if I may, I think in light of how highly litigated the issue is going to be, we try to be a little bit more specific, because we know that court orders are going to be coming from a criminal hearing, and so if it seems if slightly redundant, it's more for clarification, just to ensure the language is applied clearly. Yes, no question. yes or no question. Thank you sir, so could a court order at the agency to devote audio video recording? Yes. Thank you. Any further questions? Representative Robinson. Is there any cost involved in getting a copy of this information? There's no cost set out here. The Study bill may just

that because there are other costs involved in this whole process, but there's nothing in this particular bill. Representative Robinson. Motion at the appropriate time. Any further questions? Yeah. Thank you Mr chair, favorable report on the for house bill 713. Further motion, all in favor let the say aye. Aye members who've had the laughter of regular bills will start having the fun of [xx] The all set are a little controversial. We start off with the house Beverly [xx] junior fair trial Act I am going to call Representative Burr who chaired the committee we have a PCS We'll take up House bill 700 right now and I believe PCS and the motion from representative Howard [xx] and without objection it can force the [xx] have you passed it [xx] [xx] Members this bill has to deal with what we call snitches in jail, where the defendant is in jail, and he has a room mate in jail, and when the trial comes, the snitch although his room mate, is a witness for the prosecution in that [xx]. This bill comes about because of former Chief Justice [xx], and that was one of the last thing he wanted done in the actual innocent project, that he and Miss [xx] started about ten years ago, maybe 13. I was really not convinced that that program was going to be of any value, but I was sadly wrong about that. And that they have determined that they were a number of people and person who are actually innocent, they are not guilty, I mean Innocent off the charges, and Miss Mumah is representing justice like today, he's not here with us because he is a little informed this time and I would like to recognize for an area of bill if you don't mind. Chris Mumah a new executive director of the North Carolina and just would like to send his apologies for not been able to attend today and he has authorised me to speak on his behalf, the issue of John Haston was one of the issues when Identified by the original study group in 2002, all the other issues has been adjourned through registration to the general assembly including evidence identification recording of interrogation violation of biological evidence just as like ported, a thing I presented to supreme court on April 28th  and so we got a good timing to try and bring this last issue forward. It has been 5 exoneration in North Carolina to logical evidence so 5 DNA violation where the scientific conclusive tools has identified is innocent and identify the true perpetrators of the crime. There have been 12 altogether but five where jailhouse informant testimony was used to convict the innocent person originally. The PCS [xx] eliminates the liability hearing reliability hearing that was in the original bill and limits the precautions to a cautionary jury instruction which would be similar to what we have an accomplice testimony. It also requires that minimal protection at the beginning of the process but eliminates the full pretrial hearing. We ask for your support on this bill.

We understand practices and district attorneys offices have changed over the years and the problems that we saw 20, 30 years ago may not occur today. If that's the case, then certainly this won't impact anything but if there are any cases that are slipping through, this will help to prevent someone from being wrongfully convicted. Just a moment before you sit down, are there any instances that you can recall where there has been problems with the snitch or the person in jail. Could you go over that to the members? Yes so there's specific cases Joseph Sledge most recently was exonerated in January 2015 after he spent 37 years in prison for a double murder he did not commit. In that case there were two jail house informants who were not only paid cash but had dropped charges and reduced sentences I can hear up and if I get to situation like hearing will be convicted primarily on the jailhouse testimonies and there maybe case he spent 17 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. So we have the records to show that this has not been a problem in the past. Any questions at this moment? Representative McNeil. Yeah. I just want to kind of capitalize on your last statement there was a y problem in the past do you have any recent because I know in Randolph County, I think our district attorney's office stopped prosecuting cases from just a court in long time ago. So, is this really a practice still happening? It's happening in some districts. It's not the rule across all the district attorneys. Of course they were just pretending to have not prosecuted cases when there's only a jail helping informant without any supporting evidence at least will ensure this happens being state line. Do you have an occasion to talk with the judges about this bill? I have, I have spoken to several Superior Court Judges. Judge Hobgood was at the general assembly last week on some other issues and was representing the conferences at Superior Court Judges and his division was that the steroid is a good thing, actually he was supportive of the reliability hearing as well, but that has been removed in the bill. Thank you. Now those, are there others who'd like to speak against the bill? [xx] state your name, please. Yes Sir, Kimberly Iyvoton and I'm the chief reinforce prosecutor with North Carolina conferences judicial attorneys and well I've not been able to see the proposed committee substitute, I have reviewed the original bill in detail. First I understand that [xx] has spoken with some Superior Court Judges, I've also spoken with several Superior Court Judges as have several elected district attorneys across the state and many superior court judges have expressed to us that they're not in favor of this bill and as I understand that the superior court judges have not discuss this at the conference that had not taken a position on it, so I'd like to just share that with the committee. In addition to that after speaking my thought with 15 years of prosecutorial experience. We have several elected D. As that are present today, after speaking with many of the elected D. As, and many experienced assistant D. As and actually several criminal defense lawyers is extraordinarily rare to find anyone that is prosecuting the case they solely own and in custody informant. The two cases that [xx] as she said or very old case and as I understand it both of those cases had additional evidence that was presented at trial in addition to those in custody informants. So, I have not been able as a state to look at the xx committee substitute, but is important for us to recognize that These witnesses are just like every other witnesses, and our system in North Carolina is set up to allow the jury to make the determination as to the credibility of witnesses, and in fact they are already jury instructions in place that let juries know, and in fact tell them that they were the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses, and that they can believe any part or none of what a witness testifies to. In addition 2 1/3 because of the constitution amendment that passed in this last session, yes, if now a decedent what a judge can make this determination, they have the right to have their case heard in front of a judge, and therefore allow a judge to make all of these decisions, and hear all of the evidence in the case, and so because many of the points that were made especially in the original bill already covered in

other areas of law that this assembly has passed, discovery laws already requires us to give the decided everything we have, we have an open firewall as we all know this bill as we saw it will be repetitive and addition to that  it could have the space of the system jury system as we know it thank you. Can I ask you a question please? Yes sir. What part of the bill long do you like? I haven't been able to see what the substitute says, so that we were not in favor of the vast majority of the bill including the pre-trial determination also the part that requires district attorney to certify the reliability of witnesses and under the code of our ethics we're already barred from presenting any evidence that we would know think or believe to be false, and we're not man readers we can't note for certain what's going on in somebody's head or what did the 150% telling the truth, but we are already bound not to present evidence of such thoughts. I'm going to apologize to the public, all those who are committed substitutes [xx]. Thank you. Do wee have any other individuals in the we'd like to speak against the bill. Alright, you have another additional comment, just step up to the mic and don't comment again. Yes, not to comment again, but a clarifying statement. The two issues that have been raised is the major concerns of the process have been eliminated from the bill the PCS does not include those two provisions that were recognized as their major concerns, I'll just also note that there are currently this is not a new thing in the United States, there are currently four states that require precautionary join instructions to statues, 13 states require precautions statue to court president this is something thats happen across the country.  Do we have at this time questions from committee members to staff and the bill's sponsor? The bill's sponsor having additional comments? I do not I'm sorry but we haven't been able to there's been some opportunity to do work together to try to find some common ground but I think it's a good thing I have been a lawyer for a long time and a jail house snitch is not a common thing, but it's not a rare thing either and sometimes the case that a D. A has requires just a little more evidence and I don't know how they get what they get but there are case where the charges that the snitch were reduced, the charges that the snitch has are dismissed or if some other charges are dismissed, I just don't think it's a scary thing and I do not think this precautionary matters in the cause of justice within what they've done quite along is get find people who are actually innocent and turn them out of jail. Somebody who serves 18 years in prison is actually is an awful thing. Rep. Hall. If we are ready for a motion to comment on the bill or motion. The gentleman has the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and having heard the comments of those present in support and opposition to the bill and noting that it is been stated that it enforces many things that are already in the law and may or may not require any additional support but certainly reinforces what's supposed to be done, I move for a favorable report for the proposed committee substitute, unfavorable to the original bill [xx]. Rep. Hall has moved for a favorable report tohe PCS on House Bill 700, unfavorable as to the original. Is there any further discussion or debate? Rep. McNeil. I'd like to ask one final question on the lady that spoke against it and asked if you had a just a few seconds to look at it, does this take care of most of your concerns? addresses the concern of having the judge make a pre-trial decision about the admissibility of the informant. However, still under subsection B it's specifically lays out that a defendant shall not be convicted over an offence or

receive an aggravated sentence without collaboration. I know of nowhere else in the law where a specific type of evidence must be presented to collaborate any kind of lay witness testimony. So, what we're doing here is we're saying this particular type of witnesses we're going to require in law to have additional evidence presented and again we prosecutors are not trying cases, they solely on the testimony of an informant that is in custody. In addition to that, I'd like to draw your attention to subsection C, discovery laws already require us to give the defense everything that we have including any information about any deals that have been made or any agreements that have been made for their testimony. In subsection D, the other states that may very well have similar jury instruction don't necessary have the same instruction that we have regarding the general credibility of witnesses that's given to our jurors and then specifically subsection E. It requires district attorneys to set up policies or says that policies must be setup and there must be a central file preserving all records related to contacts with in-custody informants. The previous bill said that the district attorney needed to do that. This Committee Substitute doesn't say who needs to set up those policies or what kind of system would be put in place to keep this repository of information, and there's no guidance here on how to do that, who would keep that information, how that would be done and it would be an extremely cumbersome task  to meet. Any additional questions at this time from members of the committee? bill sponsor? Al right. If not, we have a motion from Rep. Paul. You've heard the motion. Those in favour will say, aye. Aye, those opposed will say no. The ayes have it and the bill's passed. Not through House Bill 856 before us and we have a PCS and a representatives [xx] moves that PCS be before us without objection. So ordered. Rep. Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee I am not a lawyer. I do not play one on TV. I have worked as a paralegal before, but even so I'm going to call on staff to explain this bill for you, and I'll let you know the changes that have occurred with the PCS. All right. Bill refers to pathway for currently we are going to other than a private to all the places where the track violation reveal what Hey. Hey. The bill was offered or as individual correspond up to two offences for a useful prob which will be [xx] 28, 25, 2400, and that I think would be probably through the same process for a xx. They do have to show that they [xx] Thank you and I will say that refreshingly this is a part of the bill when started in one respect by representative Hardister and another respect from myself and then we've have had the chairman at on and I'm a here for any questions if you have any. Question from members of the committee? The [xx] process has been going on a long time and I'm so darn old that I passed the drug

their era. My mum and daddy told me never drive a car fast, never drink liquor and the third thing I better not tell you other than don't smoke. I begun to smoke, I drove a car fast and I drank liquor when I turned 16. There wasn't any Marijuana and it wasn't anything else so I know that I would have tried it if it'd been out there. In my experience seeing young people come to the office who went to the beach and got caught smoking Marijuana and they were convicted. And they are young, they are under 25 in their teams but I feel as if under 25 is what I consider young. So I put this part in the bill, and if they are three of them, it's only for possession and drug paraphernalia is not for trafficking or anything like that it's just simply for those young people who made a couple of mistakes I'm hoping that we can expand their record so that they can get a job, not because of any other reason Representative Harvester Thank you Mr. Chair as a prominent sponsor of the bill I appreciate for the P. C. S and I'd like to be recognized for the motion at the appropriate time. Alright. Any further discussion or debate from the members of the committee? if not then. Okay, alright representative Harvester do you recognize the make up motion recommendation. Move for a favorable report on House Bill 856 with a referral to Finance. And this was a proposed committee substitute? PCS Okay. Alright, you've all heard this motion. Those in favor will say, aye. Those opposed will say, no. The ayes have it and the bill is passed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee. Alright Larry. Our work is done for today. We have one bill left, and I'm not sure we're going to vote on this bill today. It's somewhat complex. It is my bill and it is entitled Restoring Proper Justice Act. And it has to do with the death penalty. As you know, we have not had the death penalty in this state since 2006 because our court has made a ruling regarding the death penalty, and the requirement that a doctor must be present at the time of the death penalty so this bill simply says that for the purposes of this section, a medical professional other than a physician means a physician assistant nurse practitioner, registered nurse, emergency medical technician or emergency medical technician paramedic, who is licensed or credentialed by the licensing board, agency or organization responsible for licensing or credentialing that profession would be okay to have rather than just the doctor. The doctor must be there so it's enough to pronounce personals dead. And before we move forward we need to have that this does properly enforce Rep. Magneill moves to do that without objection be care for And I need to handout. I need an amendment. Amendment are being passed down Representative Adolph you like to ask to remain. The amendment say that the execution process under this article shall be that from chapter 50B of the general status which is the rule making authority and the reason for that is there was some injunction talking about the rule making authority I want to make it clear that we're not going to be subject to the rule making authority and so this bill will simply allow us to move forward with capital punishment calls the doctor would not be required to be there and that's been on of the hold up for a number of years since 2006 have to answer your question or anyone would like to speak on it. Any discussion on the amendment spurf has to start with the amendment you want to speak on the amendment OK the discussion from the committee Representative

Paul. I just want to go back to the last portion of the amendment thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to ask question about the last potion of the amendment thing. It'll be from 150B of general statute does that mean from this point forward does that mean only this provision will be excempt for going forward anything relating to death penalty or anything else related to that will be exempt from.  And we'll add stuff Mr. Churchill.   [xx] Something about keeping quiet who will lose the talking [xx] Follow up  Follow up so should there be some concern about future execution methodologies. That would be exempt as well Gardner. Mr. Will. That's my question Mr. Chairman just a quick comment about the ommitment thing, and I'm not sure if that's the responsibility intent to fully wipe out future exploration in rule making regarding any future execution that has been used in North Carolina or was that independent purpose? That is my intent yes. Further discussion or debate on the amendment? Okay, all right if not Representative [xx] moves that we approve the amendment 1 for house P. C. S. For House Bill [xx] 4 those in favor will say aye, Aye! those oppose will say no. The ayes are good to have have it, the ayes have it and the amendment is [xx] passed Mr. we want to hear from the public this point if you will state your name. I'm [xx] and I'm here with the North Carolina conservative he is concerned about the death penalty organisation that believes time is right, since we've not had an execution here in the States in nine years but the time may be right to consider this excursion of replacing the death penalty with life in prison without parole which is a very severe punishment in 18 states now have that Nevada that is very close to passing it through their legislature and as far as the position to re oppose that only because the American Medical Association and others think that it's probably they're in conflict with the doctors being there. But more importantly There's another reason one that is never really talked about when it comes to the death penalty, and that's the impact that the death penalty, and carrying out the executions has on the staff of the Corrections Department. The staff is required to carry on on execution of people they've cared for many years, and the average person now has been there for probably 17, 18, 19 years and they may be there for a lot longer, because we still have the debate over the cocktail. That's still in courts. You understand that this bill has nothing, this debate is not about that possibly, we have that in the space we're just not allowed to carry it out. We have sampled most of the bills abolishing capital punishment. That is xx right now we're talking about is we already have this-- We just wanted to bring in a bigger debate. Thank you. All right. Any additional comment from the fellow? If not, questions, comments from committee members. Representative Hall. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and, I appreciate the committee Chairman's work on the bill to this point, not sure if we decide if we are going to vote it today, instead of having hearings only on today, am sure that's have to use the terminational and I guess, the number of folks present he wants involved but I want to just emphasize the reason I asked the question, I asked because as we know across the United States, many people, many States have changed form of execution [xx] there have been unsuccessful executions, and

in several States, the medical personnel that were present they were doctors were able to properly ensure the executions were carried out. And so I'm not sure if this bill at this point answer those questions for me, but certainly raises a concern as to whether or not the other medical person who are available, will be able to handle any of those incidences. And well, I know we've had both our our state labs and the federal labs now admit that they provided lab results that were in some cases known to be false that later approved to be false. And it may be fortuitous t-hat we just talked about the exonerations we've had in North Carolina as a result of improper evidence or evidence that was defective, so I would be concerned. I'm not sure if the chairman is willing to take some time to look at those issues and maybe address them in the bill but I certainly wanted to make sure those concerned will put forward. I'm wanting to wait until Monday. Our next meeting is going to be a Monday at 3:30, and we'll vote on it that time. I'll give us some more time to look at the bill. Our committee is adjourned. Thank you Chair. I'm with you [xx]