Classification systems for criminal offenses aim to create standardized penalty frameworks across jurisdictions, but they face significant opposition from legal professionals who argue that such systems limit prosecutorial discretion, complicate plea negotiations, and may not adequately account for individual circumstances. The debate centers on whether standardized classifications would improve consistency and clarity in sentencing or whether they would create unnecessary complexity and reduce the flexibility needed for justice in each unique case.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Joint Judiciary Committee, May 13, 2026 - AMAdded:
Welcome to our second day of joint judiciary. Will you call the role, please?
>> Mr. Chairman, this is for joint judiciary for May 13th. Senator KGO >> here.
>> Senator Crumb.
I don't see him online.
>> Senator Hicks.
>> Senator Cole >> Representative Brady >> here.
>> Representative Bratton >> here.
>> Representative Testic >> here.
>> Representative Filer >> here.
>> Representative Kelly >> here.
>> Representative Lean >> here.
>> Representative Singh >> here. Representative Web >> here.
>> Co-chairman Olsen >> here.
>> Chairman Wash >> here.
>> You have a quorum, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you.
So, just a a reminder on our decorum.
Got a lot of familiar faces, experienced hands being at these meetings. Uh we just treat each other with respect. Uh and we get along just fine in here. Uh if you have any questions about our rules of decorum, there's copies at the door with the agenda and meeting materials that you can review.
Also, today when we're taking public comment, um we're going to uh reserve the right to try to keep that comment specific to the topics that are before the committee. Um and so uh sometimes people come with a wide variety of interests and uh come to these meetings but uh the public comment will be specific to the topics that we address and each topic will take public testimony. All right. So with that uh Miss Butler, Mr. Co-Chairman, any opening comments?
>> No. Thank you, Mr. Cocherman. said it perfectly what I was thinking about. I just I guess I will just say that um you know we have to be a little fluid. So just that's my opening remark to the public is that sometimes uh there might be plenty of time to devote to a topic and testify on a topic and discuss a topic and other times we're pressed against the clock and that's just the reality of how it works. So we just have to be flexible as we go. Thank you. Okay, >> with that we turn to our first topic of the day, the Wyoming judicial branch update. Miss Butler.
>> Uh, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Co-chairman, members of the committee. My name is Alisa Butler. I am the state court administrator for the Wyoming judicial branch and I am pleased to be here with you today. Uh, for our judicial branch update, we're going to do something very short and sweet. will be talking to you quite a bit this afternoon and so I thought I'd provide a little bit of information for the committee on um where we're at overall with court automation projects. So public access and remote public access are part of court what we call court automation. So there are a number of systems enterprise technology systems that we have throughout the branch and we've been working on those for many many years.
Um, and so I wanted to provide you all with just a bit of history on where we're at with those projects and essentially what it takes and how long it takes to implement a new enterprise system in the judicial branch. Um, so what you have or should have in front of you today is a timeline of the court automation projects. You'll see at the top it says history of court automation in Wyoming.
And so this is a again just a timeline.
We um in 2000 this legislative body enacted the judicial systems automation account and fee and so that is a special revenue account that goes to the judicial branch to pay for our enterprise software systems. Initially that account and fee was enacted to get us to eiling. That was the purpose of that fee was to get all of the courts in Wyoming, all of the judicial branch courts, and I'm accepting municipal courts because they're not part of the judicial branch, but all of the judicial branch courts on one system to allow for the implementation of eiling in Wyoming.
Um, so that fee was enacted for that purpose. It has been changed over the years. I will tell you that and we'll get into a little more of that as we talk this afternoon. just in terms of the amount of money that comes out of that fee um or that account. But that was the original purpose. And so that is really what the branch did um for you know the last 26 years is we worked toward creating an e-iling system for the state of Wyoming that is uniform statewide. Um, I will say I don't think we're entirely unique in that regard, but we are pretty special because we are what we would call a non-unified judicial branch. Meaning that um, in many other states with a unified judicial branch, every court sits under the authority of the Supreme Court. So, the Supreme Court governs all courts in that state. Wyoming is different. Um, and so we are a non-unified branch. The Supreme Court has authority over the circuit courts and the chancery court in Wyoming, but the district courts are independent. So each judge judge is an independent entity. And as you all know, the district court clerks are elected county officials. So we are non-unified.
I don't know of another state, although there could be one, where we have a non-unified branch with a uniform case management and e- filing system. Um, I believe that's probably unique to Wyoming, although I could be wrong. In most non-unified states, each clerk's office, um, district court clerk's office have their own case management system, their own e- filing system. The advantage of course to uniformity and having uniform system is data. Data is huge. Um, and we are able to capture that data much more efficiently with one unified system um, uniform system. And then the other piece of that is it allows for those who use those systems.
So right now primarily attorneys um to be able to eile into one system rather than having six or seven that they have to eile into across the state. So there are some very real advantages to that to that kind of model where we are providing one system um for all of the courts in the state. So, starting with the timeline, um, as I said, the JSA fee and account was adopted in 2000. We began work on our first case management system for the circuit courts right around that time. Um, and so that took us three years to implement. That circuit court system did not include documents. It just included data. So, we would have documents filed over the counter. Those weren't scanned in at those time. At that time, what the clerks did is they just entered data about each case and then they also tracked things like payments um and funding to ensure that the money was going to the right entities.
In 2006, we started on a project for the Supreme Court um for a case management system and e- filing system combined and it was the first e-iling system in Wyoming at the Supreme Court um that we called that seat. that took us two years to implement um from 2006 to 2008. And then on the heels of that, we started um working on a district court case management system that would be used throughout the state. And so um that system was very new to us in the state of Wyoming because at that time the district courts were all on different case management systems. I shouldn't say all. I think we had I don't know six or seven case management systems that were used by the district court clerk's offices at that time and we transitioned to using one case management system in all of the district courts um from that time 2009 to 2014. So that was the transition that took place at that time.
That transition was really important to set us up for eiling moving forward. Um, in 2016, we actually ended up upgrading all of the trial courts on a new case management system. So, that was circuit court, district court, chancery court.
All of the trial courts are now on one case management system. Um, it's the same one throughout the state. It's called full court enterprise and it's used in every trial judicial branch trial court in the state. Um, and then following that, we worked toward e- filing. So we started e- filing the e-iling implementation in 2020. We are still working on that implementation. So we finished the district courts chancery court and now we are um nearing the time when we are going to have e- filing statewide in all courts. The circuit courts will be wrapped up in early 2027.
So that is I mean there are other I don't want to give you the impression that we haven't had other projects because there are many um but this really is the timeline when we think about court automation when we think about um the enterprise systems and the things that we need to move forward to become essentially a technological branch um that operates with technology in this day and age. So Mr. Chairman I don't know that I have much else to provide just with regard to that kind of update. Um, this is again this something we thought would be helpful for the conversation this afternoon, but I'd be happy to answer any questions about this timeline and court automation or any other questions with regard to the judicial branch that the committee may have.
>> Committee questions. Representative Bling.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me.
Thank you for joining us today. My question is, do we Excuse me. Do we send this out for an RFP or is this done in-house with tech people?
Um, Mr. Chairman, Representative Lean, these are all contracted systems. So, within the judicial branch, we have 17 IT people. Um, so eight people who work on software applications and nine who work on kind of the infrastructure and hardware for the branch. So, quite frankly, we just don't have the staff to do any development inhouse. So, these are all contracted systems. um we go out to RFP, we contract with vendors to um obtain these systems, the code for these systems, and then in many instances they'll help us implement.
>> Followup, please.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um my follow-up would be what about um security? We know in today's world, technology security is really important. Could you talk to us if there's some challenges or benefits and what's what you see happening right now with this system in the courts?
>> Um Mr. Chairman, Representative Lean, yes, very much. That's something that we definitely look for regularly in terms of vendors and and and how we select.
Um, all of those systems live behind a a judicial branch firewall. I'm sure it's more complex than that. If somebody from my IT office was here, they would give you much more um accurate terms, but they live behind our judicial branch firewall on the judicial branch network.
So, that is something that that our branch controls and we um look at regularly. So we have you know annual cyber security audits. Um we have logging and tracking and constantly looking at if there are any any bad actors trying to intrude um within our network. And so that is very important.
It is a very um important piece especially as we talk about moving to something like remote public access and ensuring that we have those cyber security safeguards in place.
Other questions?
>> So, Miss Butler, um I suspect that this is kind of like highway department, right? That this is going to be ongoing that we don't have an end date that uh what's the life expectancy of these systems? How often do you anticipate having to replace or update? Is that a continuous thing or is there a a life expectancy that in six, seven years we have a massive demand for cost to upgrade?
Mr. Chairman, it's a it's a great question. I would say a couple of years ago, what I would tell you is we would need to update to a new system about between probably between seven and 10 years is a is a good life expectancy.
Um, I can tell you nobody and and I'm looking at the back of the room because the district court clerks have been through all of these implementations and they are not the most fun things in the world. So, we try to get the most life that we can out of all of these systems.
But what we are seeing and I'm sure you've heard this from other agency is we're seeing a move for most of these vendors to move to a software as a service um kind of system. So, our e filing system is a is a software as a service system. Um and we're seeing a lot of these other other vendors move in that direction. So essentially what happens is there isn't one system that becomes end of life at a certain time frame. It is a constantly updated system that you subscribe to and the vendor is constantly developing that system and providing enhancements and customizations and keeping it up to date. Um that what we've seen is that increases the cost um of those systems.
So like when we implemented I would say full court which was the first circuit court e or case management system that was one piece of code that we installed on our server and it was there right so you know we didn't really have a vendor touching that code at that time because it was installed on our server and the clerks just used it for that period of time. That is no longer the case. Um and so like our e-iling system is housed in the cloud with the vendor. Um and so they are they're touching that system regularly to update the code and and so that is the shift that we're seeing.
What we've seen from many of these vendors is um they will tell you essentially I we will support that system up through the 2025 update and then if if you're and then you have to move up. So it's 2030, you're on 2025, you're now required to move to at least 2027. Um, and so it's a constant kind of moving target that we're going to be looking at, I think, over the next few years.
>> One, Representative Web.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Miss Butler, can you give us your best guesstimate of when we're going to have remote access available to the public?
>> Miss Butler, >> Mr. Chairman, Representative Webb, I I honestly I I can tell you that if we um if we began that work soon, and when I say soon, I would say before the end of the year, I would uh my best guesstimate is it would take us two to three years to implement. And we'll we'll get into a lot of this I think this afternoon, but there are many many policy questions related to remote public access and what kind of sensitive information should be revealed to the public and what maybe shouldn't. Um, also I think there are quite a few questions about what does remote public access mean to you? I mean, and and so when I think of remote public access, I think of remote public access in terms of documents and the availability of documents, but I know that's not everybody's definition of remote public access. And so, um, I would say that is probably the minimum time frame of when we could get a a system up and running. And again, it would be all dependent on ensuring that we are thoughtful and conscientious about how we implement that system.
Thank you, Miss Butler. Um, I've been reading about these cases where um lawyers file pleadings and so forth uh assisted by AI only to find out that some of their cases are manufactured, non-existent.
Does your software on your e- filing system have any capacity for pre-screening those types of pleadings to alert the branch that uh some of the material was submitted to an AI source?
>> Mr. Chairman, it our system does not um it doesn't mean that that won't be developed and there may be I I haven't heard of any, but I don't know of any systems that are doing that today. Um, I would venture to guess many of those vendors are looking at that right now, but our system doesn't do that today.
>> Mr. Co-chairman, somehow I picture that as AI checking the brief to make sure there's no AI citations that were developed by AI.
>> Very well may be. Yeah, they're going to be in charge. Be nice to them.
>> Anybody else?
>> Mr. Chairman, >> represent Singh and then Senator Cole.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and just for the public's benefit, we have automated decision-m by AI on the agenda for the blockchain committee. So, that is something that we'll be talking about. And so, I'm interested in hearing what is heard today.
>> Could AI serve in the legislature?
>> Not. No, I don't believe so. Senator Cole.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Morning, Miss Butler. What's your definition of remote public access? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are we getting ahead of ourselves? But we can go ahead, >> Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to answer. Um, and Senator Cole, I I think when we we have been thinking about remote public access for a lot of years now. In fact, I think um Senator Olsen back in the day, we had a conversation with the legislature about it um when we were moving toward eiling. And the way that that I and I think um the people in my office, we generally think about it is remote public access to documents. Um and so allowing similar to what we have, we have public access terminals in our courouses similar to that only availability remotely. Um and so again, that's my definition, but I I think everybody has a different idea of what that should look like.
>> I don't see any further questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other state agencies or branch personnel want to speak to the judicial branch update?
Anybody?
Anybody from the clerks? No way. Anybody on Zoom?
Okay, we're going to close uh public comment on Wyoming Judicial Branch update. That will take us to our 9:00.
So, we're cooking right along. Our criminal code review, what we've all been waiting for and looking forward to uh our chance to dive into not just title six, but the whole of the criminal code. Uh I think I'd like to start with the overview provided by LSO about the different gradation systems um available in different states. So, who's going to take that? Clarissa.
>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Clarissa Nord with LSO. So this morning, I'll summarize the fact sheet in front of you and this is regarding other states criminal offense classification systems and this is included in your materials as appendix 12-03 and it relates to the committee's approved interim topic on title 6 and the criminal code review. So just for an introduction, this fact sheet primarily focuses on felony classifications. I wanted to note that appendix A, this is also included in your materials. This provides background information on misdemeanor sentencing trends which were previously identified by NCSL and so that may serve as a good resource for you all. So generally a number of states structure their felony systems by class or degree and these systems are typically organized from most to least serious in terms of the crimes and they establish penalties for each classification including uh terms of imprisonment and fines. and states vary quite a bit in terms of how detailed these systems are and if they include additional aspects like post-release supervision. So for this fact sheet we looked at Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah. And there's a number of tables included in the fact sheet. I won't review those for you all today. Um but they just provide a couple of example offenses for context and they're certainly not exhaustive for each crime that fits within that class or degree.
And then the fact sheet also notes when each state adopted its classification system. So just quickly a couple of observations about each state. Colorado they use a class-based system and they have classes one through six and um they also have a separate drug felony level classification.
And then um they designate some offenses as crimes of violence or extraordinary risk offenses and this can increase their sentencing ranges. Nebraska, they classify felonies into classes one through four. They have a number of subclasses as well, and their higher level felonies can include mandatory minimum terms or post-release supervision requirements. New Mexico and Utah, they classify felonies by degree rather than class, and their statutes set maximum prison terms and fines for each degree. And then North Dakota and South Dakota, they use class-based systems and they have fewer distinctions within each class compared to Colorado or Nebraska. So altogether, these states differ in terms of how much detail is included in statute and how um their sentencing ranges are structured. Um finally, appendix B, this is also prepared by NCSL. There are um additional examples from other states for reference. And Mr. Chairman, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for that uh great report. It's got a lot of information in different systems committee. Any questions for Miss Nord?
As you did this research, was there a sense that um any of these systems is more popular perhaps than other systems or is there scattered across the board?
Mr. Chairman, that's a great question. I would say each state varies quite a bit in terms of how they structure their classifications.
Um, it varies in terms of whether they use degrees or classes. Degrees are typically broader. Um, and they leave a little bit more room whereas classifications, those classes are a little bit more tailored and narrow.
>> Represent Lee.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, on the appendix A of the state's handout that you were just reviewing, at the top there, it talks about an increased focus in recent years on changing sentencing schemes, and I was wondering if you had any examples of that.
>> Nord, >> Mr. Chairman, I don't have any specific examples on hand today, but I'd be happy to follow up and provide that information.
>> Further questions?
Okay.
Anyone in the room wishing to discuss classification systems?
Okay.
Cut one. Brave soul.
Good morning and welcome.
>> Good morning.
>> Make sure you have your green light on.
Identify yourself for the record and then uh tell us what you like us to know about classification systems for felony crimes.
>> Good morning uh joint chairman. Uh thank you so much for having me. My name is Clayton Malinkovich. I am the sub county attorney. Uh I am here on behalf, excuse me, of the county and prosecuting attorneys association and here with me is uh District Attorney Sylvia Hackle and I'll let her introduce herself.
>> Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Sylvia Hackle, >> and we are here just to be available to answer any questions that you might have of the prosecutors. Uh we have met as a group to discuss this uh from the perspective of where we all uh review this uh more than anything from more of a rhetorical question of what is the what is the goal? What is the what is the goal of this potential change uh and and how that would and how that could be met through this and then more than anything just be we are available and want to participate. Generally uh the prosecutors association is opposed to these gradients largely because it can limit the discretion of prosecutors individually in each county. Uh but also it can create confusion uh and simp and more than anything complicate an already relatively complex system. uh would stand for any questions that anybody has about the way we approach prosecution from the prosecutorial decision to sentencing all of all of those things and or unless Miss Hackle has anything else to add.
>> Um no I do not thank you Mr. Chairman, >> Representative Chester, >> thank you. And I didn't catch your last name.
>> Last name is Melinkovich.
>> Okay.
>> Common spelling.
>> Common spelling. Yes.
>> Um I I'm I'm curious about your reasoning or your thought process in concluding that having a classification system is more complex. It seems to me less complex if you have categories that you can say all these crimes are similar and should have should be treated with similar penalties uh rather than have it pretty much random and whatever that particular legislature thought that year and then 10 years later somebody else does a different thing. It just seems way more complicated to have it um the way we have it and and categorizing things and putting them in in neater little boxes seems to be simpler to me.
What is your think thought process and why you think this proposal is more complex?
>> Mr. Chairman and Representative Chestik I'll give kind of an anecdotal uh way to look at this. Um, one of the things that each prosecutor reviews on the daily basis, multiple a day, are uh, criminal history reports that come through the national criminal uh, database of what a person's criminal background is. And I'll give you an example. For example, when you look at and the the packet alludes to some of these states that have these gradients, but Texas is one that we see quite often because we have a lot of Texans that come through Wyoming. And so we see a criminal history coming out of Texas and we see felony grade this, felony grade this.
And from that perspective, it does get confusing as okay, what is what is this?
What uh limitations do they have? How does that felony coincide with our felonies? Um and then that that ends up being somewhat complicated from that perspective. Um the other and I'm trying to uh trying to reduce a variety of of comments from u my counterparts throughout the state into to one statement. Um but the reality is that in a situation where we have uh these gradients listed out it more than anything is an extra step in that prosecutors are seeing as not necessary.
And and it's hard to really have this conversation without understanding where where the goal like what the the ultimate goal of a gradiation process is.
If that helps.
>> So let me chime in on that aspect since I was the one that brought this to the committee for interim look.
It seems to me and and I think the spreadsheet that LSO prepared for us suggests that we have quite a array of penalties provided for a thousand plus offenses scattered through what three or four different titles of the green books. Um and as time goes on we lose track. Uh we were talking before the meeting today about uh folks riding hitching a ride on a freight train as a 10day mandatory minimum. And yeah, when's the last time we prosecuted somebody for, you know, riding on a freight train? So, uh interesting like that. At the time that was passed by the legislature, it seemed to make sense.
And I'm sure that body thought that that was the appropriate penalty for dealing with those types of offenses. Now we're in 2026 and we're taking that kind of look back saying are these penalties still appropriate and um when we look at uh two crimes with very similar elements uh for example the one I like to use is uh felony eluding and aggravated assault. The elements for at least subsections of those crimes are almost identical. yet one's a five-year felony and the other is the 10-year felony. So, those are the kinds of things I was hoping that I always think it's beneficial for us to every once in a while pause and look back and say, "What's the body of work look like? Does it still make sense? Are we drifting in ways?" You know, we have three-year felonies, 5year felonies, seven-year felonies, 14-year felonies, 15-year felonies, 20-year felonies, 25 year felonies. We're all over the place, right? And so that's my thought was that uh a gradient system should be at least evaluated.
doesn't mean we have to adopt it and if the prosecutors are strongly opposed maybe that guides our decision but um I thought it was at least worth the discussion that uh hopefully make things a little more consistent perhaps easier for people as we go forward creating new felony crimes to be able to say is this crime closer to aggravated assault or is it closer to burglary? Should it be a class B or a class C felony or should it be a level one or a level four? Yeah, those sorts of things. So, that's the thought process behind it. Uh hopefully to make things clearer and less complicated as representative Chestic suggested rather than more problematic.
So, with that, any further comments from either review?
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I could respond and thank you for that clarification. I think that does help us. Uh you are very correct in the fact that we have a variety of criminal statutes spread throughout. You saw the the and I I took one the print out because I was like this is great. I want this on my desk.
So thank you to those who prepared and painstakingly took all the effort to prepare that. That is something that I'm sure that most prosecutors around the state will utilize on the daily. having prosecuted a person uh in the last 12 months for failing to provide livestock water uh which is yeah on the list I double checked it got caught but there's a variety of these things in there and and you are exactly correct and I guess from the perspective of the prosecutor's association with that rhetorical question of what is the goal certainly we have seen a variety and your thinking is correct from our perspective. We agree with you on many things to go through and do a look back of what are what things are we considering a crime in the state of Wyoming and is the penalty appropriate makes sense. And what I'm hearing is uh and I guess this is a question for you with or and the the committee generally is this something from the perspective of let's say for discussion sake my misdemeanor that I described as a uh failing to provide livestock water that's a certain grade of a misdemeanor.
the misdemeanor you described of hitching a ride on a freight t train, which some friends of mine in college did for fun, and I don't understand why.
Um, but if we're looking at that and we say, excuse me, in 2026, we've defined the livestock water as uh level one misdemeanor for discussion sake. And we've said that the um the writing of the fate freight train is a level two. Are you suggesting that we we have defined what those grades are in 2026 and then instead of going back through to address every single statute in 50 years, we can s we as a as a state can simply say we're just going to adjust the grades and then the grade applies uniformly. Is that am I understanding that correctly?
>> Potentially.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. You know, we don't control future legislators. They'll do it what they choose is duly elected.
>> But Mr. Chairman, I guess that uh could be an easy button so to speak on adjusting because it sounds like the question is is are current penalties appropriate for current crimes? And that could be an easy way to update it. And from that perspective, I would suggest uh personally myself, I would agree with Representative Chestic that that would make it simpler from the legislative fix perspective. Um that you could simply say we're just moving all grade one misdemeanors to a certain penalty. Um, and I guess to back up a little bit and and if you don't mind, the detour back to the conversation with Representative Chestic, not necessarily is it a complication from the prosecution, what is the charging and understanding what the penalties are, but realistically from a negotiation perspective and and working through and prosecuting a case. As you all are likely aware, the vast majority of criminal cases are settled through plea agreements. Um, often times the word plea agreement is a is a by word that folks don't like, but the reality is nationwide the statistics are between 98 and 99%.
And that comes from a from a place of complication for uh the courts. They're here in the room. they can talk to you about their dockets and what they're available to do. And so the reality is is that most of our criminal cases go through that plea agreement process. And where gradients create fixed defined results, it limits a prosecutor's ability and to work with uh defense council. I saw the public defenders office in the room and hopefully they can comment on this as well. But we work handinhand with these folks week after week, day after day uh to reach these kind of agreements. And that's what I mean when we're in this complication aspect. If if the legislature is telling us uh through the legislation, through the statutes that you have to put a person in this more narrowly defined range of sentencing, it just makes it more difficult to to settle these cases and get these things taken care of uh from a judicial uh economy perspective.
Represent, >> thank you for that clarification. Um, but the the concept that I'm working with here is that when we have these classifications, there's still going to be a range minimum to maximum within each category. So, you still have that range of flexibility when you work on a a plea agreement. You still have a lot of flexibility and you can, you know, you'll argue for higher, they'll argue for lower. So, I'm not sure how whe whether the the range is set by a categorization or by individual um criminal statutes. Why does that matter what what the source of that range is?
It's still a range you can work with.
>> Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative Chestic. I see what you're saying. I do and you're and we are always going to have that range uh because guidance coming from our Supreme Court also is to to look at the the person that committed the crime, what their history is, what their characteristics are. We look at a pre-sentence investigation, all those things. And we uh we also look at the nature of the crime itself to to find a place in that range. I guess my concern and again this is difficult because uh you're hearing a lot from me individually uh because we have not had a solid question to then circulate amongst the group. So I hope you'll forgive me and I and I hope Miss Hackle will chime in as well so you can get a second perspective on this >> with that if we have a variety of gradients.
My concern and I think this can be borne out in the in the communication amongst our association as well is that if we right for misdemeanors for example um the vast majority of misdemeanors are a 756-month misdemeanor there's a few that are outside of that that range up to a $1,000 fine and a year in jail and then they also get down to the 30 up to 30 days in jail or up to 20 days in jail for some of these and forgive my use of the archaic statutes such as um the destroying a legal fence uh statute which was I believe most recently updated in I think the last century not this one but the one before but it could have been the previous century before it's and so that's why I'm using the word archaic so yes we have a current range right now um but if we start getting into grading misdemeanors my concern concern personally and I can kind of see this from the group is that if we're saying we have 1 through 5 or 1 through 4 then the legislation legislatores picking these ones and that's where you have that limit of discretion and that's what I mean with that um with the more difficulty uh with a plea ar plea agreements and and reaching those plea decisions.
>> So Mr. linkers this your sense of the b of your association that folks are comfortable with what we have and see no need to change.
>> I think that's a very boiled down I'm sorry Mr. Chairman um I think that is a very boiled down way to say it. um when we look back at the way that our criminal prosecution process has been set up through the state, it is set up so that each county is different. Each county has an independ indiv individually elected prosecutor.
Uh so for example, Sublet County, I serve as the elected prosecutor there in in that county. there is the hallmark of of prosecutors acting as uh individual as in the executive branch that discretion is crucial that prosecutorial discretion that's why they're elected that's why we answer to the people and so I would say that um speaking for the group any type of legislation that seeks to limit our ability to have that discretion to serve serve in the role as the rules of professional responsibility describe as a minister of justice. We are generally opposed to.
So Mr. Malinkovich, you're negotiating a plea with a defense council and whether you charge that crime or or allow the individual to plead to a class three as opposed to a class two.
Would having these crimes in different classes limit your discretion to allow that defendant to plead to a crime in a different category? I I'm trying to understand how putting crimes in A B C D or 1 2 3 4 somehow limits your discretion.
Certainly, I'll try to give an anecdote and I do know from our conversations previously that Miss Hackle has uh significant experience in the federal system where this is somewhat borne out in uh sentencing guidelines and I do know that she has some good input on this as well. Um I'll give an anecdote just for an example of what comes to the table amongst for a standard arrest. Um prosecutors come to the office, we read the arrests from the night before.
You'll have an arrest where um a person is pulled over for failing to make a right turn. That's its own criminal violation. They then uh took a little while to get pulled over. They drove through the neighborhood because they were hoping that the the officer wasn't actually looking for them. Then we have a misdemeanor eluding. Um, then we finally get to the point where they've met with the off with the with the deputy or the police officer or the high highway the uh state trooper. They've started talking. They give some false information about their driver's license. Then we've potentially have our interference there. Ultimately, we boil down to the fact that there's a DUI and there's a there's an open container in the vehicle and their passenger has a bag of weed. So, we've got six potential charges. So, we look at it and we and as prosecutors, we say, well, what is the most Oh, let me add one more. Sorry, this is my favorite is the no seat belt and the no insurance. So, we've added so now we're up to eight. Um, so for myself personally, there's a few things that are really important to me in my office.
We never dismiss a seat belt ticket. We never do because we want to encourage you are always wearing your seatelt in Zela County. Also with insurance, we never dismiss an insurance citation because to th those are two that are there. But we look at it and we say, okay, our most important of that group of those eight is the DUI.
That's the one that has the most effect in the community that has that because the DUI creates the most danger. So then in our negotiations, we start saying we're going to dismiss this, we're going to dismiss that, we're going to do this, we're going to do uh this penalty on this one, so on and so forth. So we start in that conversation. So yes, we have these ability to negotiate and we have a lot of um we still have a lot there on the other side of that spectrum when we have one charge one charge alone where you are prosecuting let's say for example um not a DUI but you have one potential charge and that is a uh domestic battery and you're being told through the legislation. This is a class. This is a grade three for discussion sake. I know there's no pro there's no proposal of what this is going to be, but let's say for discussion sake the legislature says that that domestic battery, our one count of domestic battery that we have to work with is a grade three. And let's say for discussion sake that has a minimum and it has a maximum. And we've and we the collective, we as the state of Wyoming through you all as legislators have said that we want to make sure that every person that's convicted of domestic battery spends at least 3 days in jail. So we have 3 days to 180 days.
that mention of your minimum on that limits the ability to have that discretion and limits the ability for us to address the individual nature of that crime. And I'll give you an example on this. So for discussion sake in domestic relation situations you can often have a traditional abuser in that relationship and you've created and you've gotten into this realm of of in this relationship that the dynamic of violence has just been built and lives in that dynamic of violence. And one day let's say spouse and and this is generally let's say that uh the perpetrator of of violence is generally the husband and the most likely victim is the wife is generally how it operates. Um husband is generally doing it and then one day wife because of this dynamic in the relationship slaps husband across the face.
He decides to call law enforcement and says hey uh I just got hit in the face.
Uh there's a red mark on my face. It hurt. Therefore, we've checked all the b the boxes for domestic battery. She is arrested and she's taken away. We want to be able to look at that situation in a totality of circumstances there.
And if the legislature is telling us and they've limited and they've said you're a grade three because it's a domestic battery, we are now in a realm where we look at this person who did check every box in the violation of the statute and now we have a mandatory minimum on that when I am hoping that you all saw that maybe that person isn't the the the person that needs to be addressed and dealt with. And if the legislature is telling us, you look at that committer of domestic violence the same as you look at the other committer of domestic violence.
That's where I mean with that limitation of discretion. We want as much discretion as we possibly can have. So it seems to me your concern is about mandatory minimums as opposed to a classification system perhaps based on maximums. Is that fair?
I think that is fair to say. Yes. And I think that does reflect the the understanding of the group.
>> Repres.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I I get back to the same issue. How is it if we have the classification system? How is that a more of a mandatory minimum sentence than the the existing regime?
the existing regime the statute say here's a minimum here's a maximum why is that not itself a mandatory minimum how does how is the classification system worse than what we have >> Mr. Malikovich >> thank you Mr. Chairman and Representative Chestik, as is is borne out in that spreadsheet, the vast majority of of criminal offenses in in Wyoming are no mandatory minimum and there's a range at the top.
So we are a zero up. That's the vast majority of criminal offenses. And so if we start getting into a classification system, that's where in my mind visually I look at cubby holes. When we have like a cubby sort of these ones, this is a bucket. This is a bucket. this is a bucket and this is a hard conversation to have without um understanding what what those would be. And again, please don't look at the county and prosecutors association as being obstructionist to a legislative goal. We just want to participate in this process and are generally seeking rhetorically what is what is that goal? And that's where when we get farther along this path, I think that we can provide a lot more feedback uh as that goes on.
Representative Kelly.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And and please bear with me for a moment as I lay this out to make sure I understand what's going on here correctly. We have this spreadsheet which is kind of a mess of maybe some antiquated laws, inconsistencies, and some confusing and conflicting ideals. So there's there's an issue. The legislative fix of possibly cleaning this up and categorizing you're saying would cause more issues than it solves. Even though it may sound good from our perspective, it's another layer of more obstacles for you to jump through as you're trying to do your job for. Would you say that's fair that's fairly correct, Mr. Chairman, Representative Kelly? I think from a 10,000 foot view, yes. Uh, by no means are you going to find a prosecutor in this state if you give them an hour of time, they will tell you a variety of places in the criminal code, both in in title six and a variety of places that could use some tuneups from the perspective of us understanding the legislative intent with uh with crimes. And so I think what we are saying is that before we get to uniforming uniformizing if you will um a penalty uh scheme that includes gradients. Let's look at and fix some of these other problems in criminal prosecution that are more important. For example, um and this this is borne out as a representative from our group.
Before we look at this, let's tune up Title 35 when it comes to um controlled substances. There's a variety of significant issues in the in controlled substances that create problems for legislators on the daily. So, yes, to your point, and this is where I I'm really hoping to pivot to Miss Hackle as well, because she's much more entertaining and more echo uh um eloquent than I um in these matters.
>> We need a scheduling order in in terms of time. I think Clayton's burned up all over the tackle.
>> The problem is that that >> you're not getting paid by the minute.
>> It's true.
>> You don't have to talk so much.
>> As my old man would say, I run on a nickel and somebody put a quarter in me.
Um, but to your point, 10,000 foot view, yes, this could increase the complication for us to do our jobs.
>> Followup.
>> Yes, sir. There is a follow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, well, I'm looking at this right now and I'm speaking as an educational professional who for me AI systems have become a bane of existence as I deal with people who abuse them constantly. So, I'm by no means speaking as a fan of them. What would you think of utilizing some of the artificial intelligence tools we have now to analyze and classify data to run this mess through and red flag for the legislature whether LSO did it or your association did it to point out some rough spots that we should address specifically rather than do a a big overall gradient system.
Does that make sense? And that would does that also make sense from the perspective of not peacemeal asking different prosecutors to tell us where they think spots are? Does that seem to make sense for for me? Mr. Chairman, that seems like possibly a way we can deal with this without >> making things harder on everybody.
>> Mr. Blinkovich response.
>> Thank you, Chairman Wash and Representative Kelly. And I think the the simplest answer on that, you're not going to get objection from our organization in trying to clean up some of those problem areas. Uh and we are happy to participate and want to be engaged in that process. Uh I will be candid. We probably don't have the bandwidth to to go through and do that on our end. Um but we are happy to participate in that process and would be grateful uh for any opportunity to help uh simplify and clarify the criminal code.
>> So if we form a working group, we're getting some volunteers from your association.
>> I I uh I can say yes because I would be a volunteer as well in that situation and I can and I can promise there would be many people as well especially you you heard from Miss Hackle yesterday.
She's she's here in Cheyenne. She's very knowledgeable and I know that um you would have at least two people participating in that working group.
Senator Paul.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And sorry it took a little bit to come around to this question, but are there any laws that in the state of Wyoming that you think are appropriate to have a mandatory min minimum on for uh for committing a certain crime? Are there any laws that would that fit or they all have to be? You know, this is your opinion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Mr. Mullikovich, >> Chairman Washed and and Senator Cole, um I hear Sylvia talking under her breath on that one and she's saying the same thing I'm saying, which is yes. Yes, there certainly are.
>> Miss Hackle, do you want to chime in?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I get to speak.
Um and I'm not bringing nickels next time to this meeting for you. Um, I think everything that's been said here, I in in response to Sen um, Senator Cole's question, we already have crimes that have mandatory minimums and they're usually the very serious ones, you know, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, those kinds of crimes committed with a gun. So, I would hate to see that go away. If I might, Mr. Sherman, going back to to Representative Kelly's comments, finding the problems and fixing them might be more beneficial to the criminal code as a whole and less overwhelming than first going through and categorizing the crimes. There are problems in the criminal code. there are inconsistencies and this has since been changed but when I first started practicing law which was in the past century to which Mr. Malinkovich referred um you got in more trouble if you rustled cattle than if you killed somebody's dog. And that may still be the case, but you know, you only had to meet a certain financial threshold to hit the felony level if you were taking livestock, but it was a much higher financial threshold if you were doing other things. And to me, I was a baby public defender back then. It didn't make sense.
um why that would be the case and also as a prosecutor because I thought those people should be prosecuted as well. For me, if I might, Mr. Chairman, the question is what is the harm you're trying to solve? If in fact it's to clean up the criminal code and the inconsistencies and the the things that don't make sense, the crime of hopping on a freight train, that sort of thing. I absolutely agree that that needs to be done and I believe that the association would support that.
Speaking both for myself and based on the conversations I've heard as a group, we don't tend to see the point in classifying everything. We've got some real broad classifications now that we all work with. Low misdemeanor, high misdemeanors, or misdemeanor as a whole, and felonies.
We know those differences. We know how to charge them. It it dictates where the case goes. Does the case stay in circuit court? Does it go to district court? It's a system that it's not maybe as consistent as people would like based upon the definition of the crime, not based upon the class a classification. But um so I I would ask you to be very specific within your own legislative body. What's the problem you're trying to fix? My personal belief is when you answer that question, you'll see that cleaning up those places in the code might be more beneficial to solving that problem than merely a classification system. And Mr. Chairman, one last comment because I didn't get a quarter's worth of time. Um, I did work for the for the federal 10th circuit for a while and we I did appeals and we had a lot that involved the federal sentencing guidelines and it was kind of a fascinating project but it was also sort of like being in a Chinese restaurant. you know, we got to pick you had to pick your crime from this set of columns and the offense from this and you had to make them fit. And the appeals all concerned did you pick the right crime in the right column. Now, that's oversimplifying it to a huge extent, but a lot of the fighting was about what column did you place this in, not what on earth happened. And so I mean I thought it was kind of mathematical and interesting but I don't know how much it went towards doing justice but they still use it in the federal system. So I echo what Mr. Meankovic said absolutely willing to help with a working group look at these statutes. I've worked with them a very long time. Um don't have all the answers don't even have all the questions but would am more than willing to assist in any capacity I can.
Mr. Cocho, >> thank you. I think um one way that I would I'm kind of envisioning approaching this based on the conversation that we've had is maybe a series of working groups. I think it um the co-chairman and I kind of talked about this a little bit too. If you had a working group, for example, that was tasked with misdemeanors and would look at because you have your 750 as you mentioned um six month and then you have your oneyear thousand. see like the high misdemeanor and the standard or low misdemeanor, wherever you want, however you want to look at it. But I think it would be important to look at all those misdemeanors and understand whether we've got them in the right category as the high versus the the the low. And then and there could be a working group that looks at felonies as well um and compares and contrasts those. And and from our perspective, it's just that a leg every year the legislature adds criminal offenses. And when we do that, we don't spend any time looking at hardly any time at least looking at existing statutes to know whether the I mean, we're just going with our gut whether the penalty feels right or not.
It feels like most of the time.
>> Um, and then a third category would I would really be interested in a working group on is the mandatory minimums. Um because I I believe that there may be some areas, you may be correct that there are some areas where it makes sense to have mandatory minimums, but we probably have some that don't even make sense anymore. Um I'm I'm I'm not a huge fan of mandatory minimums. I think they take away prosecutorial discretion. I think they take away judicial discretion. I think you um you lose a lot when you say this is the minimum versus a 0 to 20. Um, so I would be interested in knowing which ones the prosecutors association believes we should keep and others that we should open that back up to have discretion because it may have just been a legislature at the time that statute was created that for whatever reason thought there should be a one-year, you know, minimum. Um, but maybe it just doesn't make any sense. So without spreading your group too thin, you know, you know, a couple of you in each of those working groups, I think, would be tremendously helpful and a couple of us in each of those working groups. And then we begin to compare and contrast. Um it sounds like we would be um up against a mountain if we decided to do classifications because you you clearly don't want those. and we only proposed it as a potential solution to somehow comparing and contrasting these criminal offenses. So, whatever way we can do that, Mr. Chairman, I think we're going we're going to begin to narrow down the way path forward, but those are some of my initial thoughts.
>> Thank you, M. Co-chairman.
>> Can I represent Lane respond?
>> I don't think there was a question in there. I think that's more of a comment.
>> Wouldn't you agree, >> Mr. Commission?
I just this is the problem is you've got a couple attorneys up here and we can't resist. I appreciate the idea of where you're headed with that and if I if I might make a suggestion instead of looking at it as where are current felonies, misdemeanors, and mandatory minimums. Maybe divide up our uh criminal offenses uh in maybe three different groups such as like property crimes, personal crimes, and and other.
And then you have that full gradient including the including misdemeanor and felonies of a personal violence crime.
And then that group is talking about assault and battery and they they know where that gradient is between aggravated and simple and they talk through that process.
>> Thank you Lane.
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you for joining us today. Um can you talk to me about have either of you spent any time in other states practicing law? We heard about the federal a little bit, but have any of you practiced under a different mechanism for implementing punishments?
>> Uh, Mr. Mikovich, Chairman Wash, and Representative Lean, I have not. I've only been licensed in the state of Wyoming.
>> And Mr. Chairman, Representative Lean, nor have I. I have been a member of the Wyoming bar my entire career.
I forgot to mention I did work in the federal system which is a little bit different as Sylvia mentioned but I have worked in the federal system but only in Wyoming.
>> Followup.
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um okay given that will you talk to me about plea plea bargains? Um I I hear what you're saying and if I had to sum this up I'd hear you. What I'm hearing is we don't want to change this because it takes away our ability to create more plea bargains. Is that an accurate thought process, >> Mr. Mike?
>> Not necessarily more, but just to be able to be strategic and meet those needs in a situation where you have a in the middle of a criminal prosecution, you are working directly with defense counsel. A lot of times it's the same defense council that you worked with before, especially in Wyoming. We're grateful to be able to work with with folks that we get along with well and you're ultimately trying to reach this goal of justice. What is justice in this certain circumstance? A lot of times you're working through what are victim's needs? What is a restitution claim? A lot of those situations from my personal experience. I have prosecuted only as under for the state of Wyoming uh at state level, but I have done defense work for both at the state level and then also at the federal level. And I'll give you an example. Um, Miss Miss Hackle alluded to a sentencing guideline through the federal system. I had a client, he was in Sheridan. He was being prosecuted for the delivery of methamphetamine. Um, there was a weapon in the there was a weapon that was found in the garage where he was operating a business where he was ultimately arrested. And so in that process, as Miss Hackle was talking about with those columns, in that circumstance, the the federal prosecutor essentially said, "Here is the result that it this is the this is the outcome. This is the only outcome.
There's no opportunity to to work around any negotiation." And that's what I mean. Um because of there was a weapon.
And so you had your five year fiveyear add-on because it was a weapon. Um there was other situations that created a number of months that that person was to was to serve based on that system and it was very very rigid. Not a whole lot of room to work and negotiate and reach uh reach that justice point if that makes sense.
>> Follow I don't think we're looking at sentencing guidelines in Wyoming but I understand the reference of how they fit together.
>> Represent Ling.
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. My my last one would be about maximum penalty usage.
Can you talk to me about situations where we're not using them, situations where we are using them, and a little bit of the discretion that the prosecutors are using when we come to those?
>> Miss Hackle, I'm going to change that.
See, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Glean. Um, a good example would be um seconddegree murder. That is a statutory penalty of 20 years to life.
And so often whether we're talking about a jury conviction or a plea disposition between the parties where the defendant agrees to plead guilty in in this district here in the first judicial district the judges do not like the attorneys to come in and say we've agreed that you should sentence this guy to 40 to 45 years. does happen but it is not the preferred way but we will go in and make a recommendation and then the defense usually makes sometimes it's the same recommendation sometimes it's different and then the court has the whole range from 20 years to life often we see 45 to 50 years um child molestation and child pornography are another couple areas where you see some pretty hefty sentences as you should. So, we at least in this district, we feel we cannot and should not attempt to limit the judge's discretion because the judge has the full range of sentencing. Often the defense and the prosecutor agree on a recommended sentence and then I've been in the court when the judge has said I think that's too light or I agree I'll go with that or I'll make the bottom number this instead of what you asked for. So it's it's it's a real variety and particularly with respect to judicial discretion, no matter how this work turns out, I recommend not touching it because it's very important to the administration of justice in this state.
>> Very good. I see we have the state public defenders office on our list specific to the classification system. I know they all kind of tied together here, but we're kind of breaking this into the classification system, then we'll start talking about the others, but public, thank you both for being here.
>> Thank you for having us and the opportunity.
Good morning. Really glad you could join us.
Please intro introduce yourself for the record and tell us what you'd like us to know about your view on classification systems for criminal sentences.
>> Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you for having me today. My name is Patricia Bennett and I am the state public defender.
Um, with regard to classification systems, what one of the biggest concerns with the public defenders office and probably defense council statewide, whether they're private or public defenders, is what we would like to see is consistency throughout the state. What we have concerns about is, you know, if someone's arrested in one county on a charge and someone in a different county under very similar circumstances, we would like to see those people be able to be um sentenced or even plea negotiations be somewhat consistent. um you know we make a joke is you know where depends on which county line you've crossed in uh on I80 as to what uh you can expect uh for similar circumstances and so that's something that we cons are concerned about looking at it just from that perspective I believe that um some sort of classification system wouldn't be the worst way to do that um because what that does is it it does take specific speific crimes with specific circumstances and it puts them in buckets that have a narrower um sentencing range and so everything is going to receive some level of plea negotiations. So I don't know that it necessarily limits plea negotiations. I think that happens. Um Mr. um Malinkovich was absolutely right. 98 99% of all of our criminal cases end in a plea agreement. Um, so I can see from that perspective where a classification system would be helpful. Um, it would also help as far as getting um consistent sentencings from our courts.
Um, as Miss Butler explained, our courts are all individuals. They're all um they they are all their own entities and they um are fairly different across the state. Um so from that perspective definitely I understand um where that wouldn't be the worst idea. However um I also agree to a certain extent with Mr. Malenovich. I think a wholesale classification system might be more than um we need to do at this point. I like the idea of a working group where we look at and I I think his his division is is probably better where we look at crimes against the person, crimes against property because within all of those there are misdemeanor offenses, felony offenses, theft being one of them. Um battery all the way from simple assault all the way up to aggravated assault. Um, so I think looking at them in that way is more efficient and and probably more consistent across the board than trying to divide them into felony and misdemeanor. Um, so I don't I don't disagree with working groups to take a look at some of our uh our criminal code. Um, a good example when we're talking about the classification system is um, burglary. And I've used this example multiple times. If you have two 17, 18 year old kids that are out, you know, acting dumb like 17 and 18 year old kids do and they're walking down the street flipping open a vehicles looking for one that's unlocked and they steal a handful of change, that's burglary.
If you have someone that sees that the neighbors are out of town and they invade someone's home and steal things from their home, that's also burglary.
But those are very different situations. So in that type of situation, I can see where a classification would be helpful, but I don't know that we necessarily need to do that across the board.
>> Thank you, Miss Bennett. questions committee. Representative Lane.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for joining us today. Miss Bennett, would you talk to me a little bit about maximum penalty and the way that that comes through your office and how you see them? Are we using them as a benefit in Wyoming or are they being used as a deterrent for more crimes, that kind of thing?
>> Miss Bennett.
>> Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, Representative Lean, I think we use maximum penalties in probably everything we do. Um we negotiate um and sometimes we negotiate in a way that um a a charge is dismissed and refiled um either lower or higher depending on the circumstances. The maximum penalties um limit plea negotiations. They limit what that person can receive. Uh, for example, um, we were talking about seconddegree murder is 20 years to life.
Manslaughter is 0 to 20. And so what those do and what that adds is it gives you the opportunity to look at the circumstances and the defendant as an individual. Um, and it gives quite a bit of discretion, but not so much discretion that if there weren't those maxes. I look at those as kind of uh speed bumps in that you can only go that so far with with a sentence on on a specific crime. That's different than mandatory minimums. Um, having worked a little bit in the federal system, I don't care for mandatory minimums. Um, I understand that on a very very crimes they're probably appropriate, seconddegree murder being one, um, and murder and first-degree murder obviously. But when you start looking at some of the lower level crimes, what a mandatory minimum does is it takes out the ability to look at that defendant as an individual. Um, as I think it was described a minute ago, you have very specific columns. you go from this column to this column to this column, this is the crime, but you don't get to look at the person as an individual. And I think that can be harmful. Um because what we there is a level of punishment and a level of deterrence and incapacitation and sentencing, but there's also a level of rehabilitation.
And I'm sure that uh my colleagues from the department of corrections will talks about um about rehabilitation and we have to look at that. Sometimes a mandatory prison sentence or even a mandatory jail sentence is not appropriate for an individual um given their circumstances. What are they dealing with? Is it a substance use issue? More concerning is have they committed a crime as a result of a mental health issue? Um, our prisons are equipped fairly well. They have some good programs for substance abuse, that sort of thing. But our prisons are not a place for the mentally ill. And I think we have to be careful when we look at mandatory sentences and whether or not we are able to sentence the person as an individual.
Um, so I think we have to be very careful with that.
>> Followup.
>> Followup.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, you spoke about inconsistencies. Different counties receive um, different penalties. And so I'm wondering, is that a portion of us not having a unified court system across Wyoming or is that based on one prosecutor does their job better than another defender? Where where is the discrepancy there?
>> Bennett.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Lean. I I think all of those things are a factor. Um, and then when you're dealing with attorneys, we you're also dealing with personalities. Um, our prosecutors by and large are well, no, they are all elected officials. They all have a people that they have to answer to. Our judges stand for retention. I don't know that it being a unified system matters necessarily, but you are dealing with different individuals um that have to um answer to their um different constituencies. And so we have to take that into consideration. Um, so you know, they're they're just different depending on where you're at across the state.
Further questions, Bennett.
So, the working group, um, I know that we've seen a lot in the news about workload for public defenders, but might there be public defenders who would participate in a working group to to evaluate um the sentences contained in our criminal statutes.
>> Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we would absolutely want to be part of that. Um, I think that when we have different perspectives from, you know, different entities, whether that's judges and prosecutors, defense attorneys, I think we will come out of that with the absolute best product if we have those different perspectives.
So, we would be more than happy to participate in those processes. Okay.
>> Thank you very much for being here.
Anyone else in the room wishing to testify reference to classification systems?
Good morning. Please set your name for the record and uh tell us what you like us to know about classification systems.
>> Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Jenny Craig. I am the deputy attorney general with the Wyoming attorney general's office in the criminal division and uh the committee requested that we be here today to discuss this topic. I don't have much to add to what has already been said. Um, I think that the the primary concern with this idea of a classification is that in order to create different classifications, I think there's some concern that we're going to have to start condensing some of the sentences that are available for the individual crimes to make them fit into those categories. And one of the great things about the way that our sentencing scheme is set up already is that it affords a lot of discretion to consider the individual nature of not only the individual who committed the crime but also the the attenuating circumstances around that crime. And I think that there's just concern that if we start condensing that that that those facts won't be able to be taken into consideration as greatly as they are now. Not all seconddegree murders are created the same. Not all aggravated assault and batteries are created the same. So, it's important for the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, and the judges to have that ability to work within those broad sentencing ranges.
Um, and I understand that we're not suggesting sentencing guidelines. But I think there's just that concern that it kind of starts looking like that a little bit. And I'm not I mean I don't want to speak for everybody out there, but I'm not sure we would find a lot of people that would say that the federal sentencing guidelines are the gold star for seeking justice in the criminal justice system. Um because it doesn't allow you to take into account the individual nature of the defendants, the victims, the crimes and and everything that goes along with that. Um so that would be my my caution. I think the system that we have works well. I mean, no system is ever going to be perfect.
Um, but I think that the way that it is set up currently allows us to juggle all of the different things that we're looking at. And you can never take away the fact um if we want to be able to have that discretion to consider the facts about the defendant. I mean, we also have to just accept the fact that we're also dealing with individual prosecutors, individual judges who all view things a little bit differently, but it's all that's just part of the process and and I think that it works pretty well. Um, but other than that, I I would stand for any questions that you have, but I agree with everything that my colleagues have said.
So when you look at the criminal codes, do you see room for improvement in terms of uh that spreadsheet that the LSO put together for us I thought was enlightening. Is there work to be done on the criminal code?
>> Mr. Chairman, I think there's always work that can be done and the fact that we are looking I mean the last time that the criminal code has been revamped was 1982.
Um, and so I I think that there's always always room to look to make sure that as we're adding new crimes as society and what society is looking for, what society thinks is important to be punished in a particular way versus things that maybe we don't think need to be punished as harshly anymore. Those can definitely be looked at. Um, and I agree with what Representative Kelly had suggested and what my colleagues had talked about that I think that I think that we can look at this in a more surgical way and looking at the individual crimes and how they fit within what the legislature thinks is proper for the state of Wyoming as opposed to doing a pretty significant revamp. Um, especially with how we're looking at sentencing and classifying things. I I think that we could address some of the concerns more easily if we look at things individually.
>> Okay.
>> And my golden question, is the attorney general's office willing to participate in working groups towards this end?
>> Mr. Chairman, um I think that the input from the prosecuting attorneys and the public defender's office would be far more valuable than probably anything that I could add, but I would be happy to participate if that's what the committee would would like. Okay.
Questions?
Okay. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you.
>> Anyone else in the room reference classification systems? Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Alan Thompson, uh, executive director of Wyoming Association of Sheriff's and Chiefs of Police. And I would just like to, um, request that maybe law enforcement be considered for any working group. I know that this is a policy decision and doesn't usually affect uh the law enforcement, but there are times where um elements of the crime might be changed in order to fit into a sentencing scheme. And um just I think having a member of law enforcement in that discussion helps understand the intent of what might come out of it on the other end and uh help inform our members should these changes happen.
>> Thank you. Appreciate the offer.
Help. Any questions for Mr. Thompson?
>> Very good. Thank you, Mike.
>> Who had a qu Oh, Representative Lean has a question for Mr. Thompson.
>> An LSO question. Oh, very good. You're off the hot seat.
>> Sorry, Mr. Thompson. Um, I was curious to know if Wyoming is the only structured criminal code that we have.
Are we the only state that does it this way or are there other states that have um the same the legislative body writes the penalty and puts it into statute and then we just move forward?
>> Are we the only one without a classification system?
>> Uh Mr. Chairman, Representative Lean, I I don't believe so. I Wyoming is not unique and and not having a a classification or gradation system.
>> Good morning. Please introduce yourself for the record. Tell us what you want us to know about classification systems.
>> Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Lindseay Simino, and though I am usually the behavioral health lady at the capital, today I'm just a mom from Laramie County. Um, when I testified before you as far as interimm topics, I specifically was asking for classifications when it came to physical child abuse. Um, and specifically because of the case that involved my son in 2017. Uh this is a door I have consistently knocked on since 2017 with my work here at the capital and um we are we I I am very excited to just see any form of this discussion happening.
Um, that being said, seeing all of Title 6 included, um, it knowing how this conversation has gone the last 10 years with just the physical child abuse statutes, um, all of Title Six felt like a heavy lift as the mom. Um, as far as what is our goal here, that's really what I wanted to answer today. And I think what the goal is um as far as what the judiciary committee experienced during session and with this this interim topic specifically is how do we provide justice in a way that is not insulting to victims and not insulting to the loved ones of those victims. And that is what we heard yesterday when we talked about reckless driving. uh specifically House Bill 8 and 9. Both moms testified at that time that when they talked to law enforcement about what happened with their children, uh they were told that because of statute, they had limitations in charging and sentencing. My child and his physical child abuse case, it was the same thing.
Because of the statutes, there were limitations in charging and sentencing.
And so, however the committee wants to go about it, I think a working group is absolutely reasonable as long as the conversation is continued um breaking it down individually. I think moms are very vigilant if that needs to happen. Moms will show up and make that happen. Uh victims and victims families will show up to whatever working group and meeting to make sure that those changes are made. Uh I am only asking that the conversation continues in some form and I thank you for that.
Thank you for bringing that perspective.
I I think uh I hadn't thought about maybe somebody from the victim services off maybe Miss Chambers would be a great person to have on that working group or somebody in the victim services arena.
That'd be good to have on that group.
Thank you, Miss Semino. Any questions, Miss Simo?
Thank you for being here today. Anyone else regarding classification systems?
Clerks, do you have a issue with classifications of felony crimes or misdemeanor crimes? Don't see any eagerness to jump up. Judge Chambers, any uh from the judicial branch that's going to have any implications on our eiling or uh software head shaking back there. Maybe you don't. Okay. All right.
So, yes, >> Mr. Hansen.
All right, Mr. Hansen, we're specific to classification systems. Are you out there?
You coming in, Mr. Hansen?
All right, Mr. Mr. Hansen, we're discussing sentencing classification systems. I know this is distinct from your area of concern, which is the sex offender registry. So, um, if you keep your comments specific to the sentencing structure, uh, and not the registry, I'm happy to hear your comments this morning.
>> Chairman Wash, I appreciate it. um you know specifically when you get into these as a citizen um and you're talking about these classification levels um it's pretty important because even as you guys have seen um when citizens have tried to bring issues that are within these codes to you even your own representatives have a hard understanding of which crimes are comparative to which other crimes. And so, personally, I believe this would help in helping not only your representatives and everything understand that, but the public as well.
Um, and that then leads specifically into what I would like to address about a specific penalty that is being forced.
Um, and I can bring that up later within this meeting if if um that's acceptable or I can present that topic. Now, I >> I think the challenge for us, Mr. Hansen is is that the sex offender registry is not a penalty. It's not a punishment for a crime. It may feel like that to some people, but the in the legal sense being included in the sex offender registry is not seen as double jeopardy. It's not seen as a a penalty for the crime. And so our discussion today as we discuss criminal penalties is outside of the sex offender registration classification system. And if I may, Representative Wash should just say that I understand that um the registry itself is not um you know something that is a penalty.
But as you all have heard and as everyone that I brought this specific issue up with, everyone realizes that this specific statute 6-2 316 AI is being punished because they are having to register twice as long as if they um as other offenders who chose younger victims or worse conduct. And not one of you can say that that's not punishment.
If I were to take this to court today, a judge would agree that that is punishment. And so, yes, I understand that the registry itself is not punishment. But what you guys have done as a legislative body is impose a punishment, a penalty that these individuals are not able to uh fix any other way but through this committee.
And your committee has pushed this off and pushed this off. And you have been incentivizing these offenders who committed worse offenses for 18 years now. And you've made these offenders who committed less serious offenses register twice as often for 18 years. And they can never ask for relief from duty to register. They also are imposed much stronger penalties within the communities. They can wear have be made to wear ankle monitors. They can be made to live further away um from schools and parks. There are so many penalties forced upon these just from being placed into the wrong tier. And it has been shown there are four or five worst offenses with younger victims and worse conduct that register two times a year for 25 years. Yet you're making this thirdderee low-level offense register four times a year for life. It's time to stop overpaying your reporting agents to monitor lower level offenders.
It's time for you guys as a committee to fix the unconstitutional treatment that the legislative body imposed on these people. As a man and a Christian, I believe when you make a mistake, you admit it and take accountability and you work towards fixing that mistake.
It's time for this committee to finally own up to the mistake that the Wyoming legislature has made and the unconstitutional treatment being forced upon anyone convicted of 62316 AI sexual abuse of a minor.
I appreciate being allowed to speak today. I understand that legally you guys can say the registry is not a penalty, but every one of you can sit here and not one of you can say that it's not more of a punishment that these people have to register more often and can never ask for relief from duty. Yet, had they chosen younger victims, they would be monitored less and able to get off. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Hans. I appreciate you keeping that brief and and you know if you're convinced that this is in fact unconstitutional then I encourage you to use the legal system to file that challenge. Uh contact your own local legislator perhaps individual legislator will bring a bill. Uh it doesn't have to be a committee bill to attend to these matters and uh so appreciate you being here this morning. All right. Do we have anybody else in the room or on Zoom?
>> Mr. represent Senator Cole.
>> Thank you. Just to make a general statement on my part, I will never apologize. I will never support uh the the lack of protection for children and and victims of sexual abuse. I I don't think it's appropriate.
I think saying the legislature is doing the wrong thing, I guess it's your opinion. My opinion is I'm doing the right thing and I promise the public I'll continue to do it with pride. Thank you.
Okay. Anything further?
Okay. So, I'm going to uh take about a 10-minute break. Um and we'll come back and talk about the crimes themselves rather and see if the committee has a preference on which way we might want to go on the uh classification system question. Yeah. So, we'll stand at ease for 10 minutes.
All right, we get back to work. Um, >> Mr. Fuller, why don't you talk to us a little bit about your spreadsheet and and what it is and what it is not. and >> um also enlighten us a little bit about the last time the legislature looked at uh the criminal code.
>> Yeah. So, so Mr. Chairman um before I jump into the spreadsheet if I may just a couple of um kind of prefaratory comments particularly in light of the discussion and the first would be Mr. chairman, members of the committee is I would start with the premise and the Wyoming Supreme Court most clearly stated this in in a case Billis versus state that the legislature has the exclusive power to prescribe what actions are crimes and then to fix the criminal punishments for those actions that have been declared as crimes. I I bring that up for for two reasons.
First, the spreadsheet, each row, each row on this on this spreadsheet represents a decision by the legislature to to make a criminal offense and fix a a criminal penalty, you know, for that offense, whether it's in title six or any of the other titles of of the Wyoming statutes. The second reason I bring that up, Mr. chairman is kind of going back to the the classification discussion and each state um on on Miss Nord's um fact sheet that has that represents a legislative determination about how to classify um criminal offenses and fixed penalties. And within those states that have adopted the classification systems, each state has done it differently. Colorado, for example, has in their felony ranges fixed mandatory minimums within those ranges. There is a minimum and a maximum of those ranges. Colorado though has also split out drug crimes in a completely separate um classification structure and system. Colorado also has offenses and unfortunately I don't have any um examples right at the tip of the tongue um but have examples of of criminal offenses of felonies that are not placed in a class and and keep a a a um a penalty separate. Nebraska um for their classification system they also have minimums and maximums. They also have a class um for just one crime. So first-degree murder is in its very own class with its very own penalty. No other crimes in in that class. South Dakota, I'll bring that up as another example because South Dakota's classification system does not have mandatory minimums. Each of their classes only fixes a maximum amount. So Mr. Chairman, on to the the spreadsheet.
Um before I just kind of jump in, I'll just share a few general principles that may be helpful for the committee to consider. Um the the first would be um Wyoming law, you know, as most states do, define felonies and misdemeanors.
Felonies are any offense that can be punishable uh by death or imprisonment for more than one year. Every other offense that does not fix punishment at at least one year imprisonment or more um or more, excuse me, more than one year imprisonment is a misdemeanor offense. Um statute also prescribes default penalties for certain situations. So for felonies, if a felony offense does not specify a different fine, um Wyoming law says that um the maximum fine for those offenses is $10,000 for misdemeanors. And this is fairly common um although not extensive I would say. But if there's if a crime just says this is a misdemeanor and does not specify any penalty, Wyoming law says that the penalty is up to 6 months and up to a fine of $750.
Um most crimes are in title six, but there are crimes scattered throughout numerous titles. Title one um 31 35 37 and nine I 41 for water um 37 for public utilities you know the drug offenses are in 35 um it just it spans the gamut um game and fish 23 so um there are crimes everywhere in in um in Wyoming law just a few general principles um the criminal penalties typically I I would say in in preparing the spreadsheet include a maximum fine and a maximum term of imprisonment. Some offenses include both maximums and minimums. And on the spreadsheet, you can see that there are fewer crimes with minimums.
There are a handful of crimes of offenses that include only minimum fine amounts and minimum terms of imprisonment without specifying maximums. One example of that would be um the recently enacted money transmitter offenses. Those offenses specify minimum um minimum fines and minimum imprisonments without maximums.
Um when imposing a criminal sentence under Wyoming law, courts cannot fix a definite term of imprisonment. Instead, a court when imposing a criminal sentence must establish a maximum and minimum term within the limits that are authorized for the statute violated. The maximum cannot exceed the statutory limit and the minimum cannot be less than any minimum provided by law. And then the minimum can also cannot be greater than 90% of the maximum term imposed. So just one example, a court could not impose a sentence for murder um at 49 to 50 years because the minimum is greater than 90% of the maximum. Wyoming law also allows for deferrals and suspensions of sentences in favor of probation. I did not really get into that in in the um the memo. The other thing I would mention is that some laws are um characterized as high misdemeanors and low misdemeanors. I would say this is most common in title 23 for the game and fish offenses where um virtually all of those offenses specified if they are misdemeanor offenses are characterized as high misdemeanors which sets one fixed penalty and low misdemean misdemeanor which fit which um impose another fixed penalty. So in some sense particularly for title 23 there is that gradation system already. You know the legislature has characterized those offenses as low misdemeanor, high misdemeanor. Um title 7 defines high misdemeanors as those offenses for which the penalty authorized by law exceeds the jurisdiction of municipal courts. um on in and title five for the m municipal court statutes um they are limited to offenses um uh that that provide for a 6 months or $750 fine. Um those that go up to a year are not in the jurisdiction of that court for the spreadsheet. And Mr. Chairman, thanks entirely to Miss Nord.
Um the spreadsheet is now um posted online in a I think a relatively readable um PDF. You have paper copies.
There are paper copies um out as well.
You also have the um the spreadsheet itself that was part of the um e notebook that Miss Nord sent out. So um and the benefit of that is you can go through and sort um by penalty by color um to see you know all the offenses that are in you know partic you know that all the offenses that are fiveyear felonies or 10year felonies and and so forth.
Same with the fines. Those columns are um are are sortable as well.
A couple of notes just on the what I would say are the limitations of this spreadsheet. I would call it extensive.
I'm not sure I would call it exhaustive though. Um there are certainly offenses that that I miss. For example, contempt.
I didn't include um you know, title one talks about contempt of court. That's not included in here. I did not include as well each individual speeding infraction um because those are pretty well you know they are quite divided um by you know the the amount over the speed limit that you're speeding whether you're speeding in a construction zone whether you're speeding in a school zone. Um this committee also undertook that review about eight years ago um and went through and redid all of those um all of the the the fine amounts for for those. So, those are not included in the spreadsheet. Um, you know, that said, I'm sure there are probably offenses in statute that that I missed. Um, just, you know, by by limit of time and limit of um, you know, just just my ability to to review. I have included the information on the years the offense andor the penalty was amended for title six. I have not been able to complete that for um, the remaining criminal offenses outside title six. as has been mentioned and and as you requested, Mr. Chairman, um a lot of these offenses will say 1982 or 1983. And that is the last time, as far as I can tell, that the legislature undertook an exhaustive review and uh and basically reorganization of of the criminal code.
Um as best I can tell, that process took at least two years. I would say maybe even um into a third year. I I would I would presume that this started in at least 1981. um the legislature sponsored and enacted legislation in both 1982 and 1983 um to complete this this reorganization of of the criminal code.
Um so just because a crime says 1983 doesn't mean that's when it was created.
Um that's just again the limits of time and ability to research. Um you know these offenses, you know, almost certainly existed before that that reorganization.
the information that's on that first column of the description. Um, it's an extremely brief description of the offense. It's not intended to capture um comprehensive information about each element that is required to be proven for that particular criminal offense um or any any subsequent or attendant court decisions that may apply to that offense. for example, whether a a particular criminal offense has been declared unconstitutional um or or has um other caveats that that courts have found. I have also not included in the spreadsheet any action for which u that calls for only a civil penalty. I also have not included status offenses, you know, those offenses that those actions that if an adult commits that um would not be a criminal offense.
Um some offenses do not have a specific penalty. Um, some statutes have offenses that refer to a different statute. I've tried to capture that um in the no section um on the far right of of the column. Um, the spreadsheet is colorcoded. Um, candidly, no real no real system or or thought process for the colors I chose. I just tried to choose different colors um for the different amounts, the different um the different penalties. In the left column, this is the fourth um column, you can see the minimum prison term for the offenses. And like I noted, um you know, most offenses in in Wyoming law do not have um a a mandatory minimum. I did color code in the far right column if an offense was already characterized or classified as a high misdemeanor or um or a low misdemeanor. So that um that is captured as well. Um, if a specific fine is required rather than a maximum or minimum, I also tried to include that in the note section as well. Um, Mr. Chairman, at this point, happy to go line by line um through the spreadsheet.
Um, with that, I'll I'll stand for questions.
>> I like the line by line approach. We ought to be done by 7:30 tonight, maybe >> tomorrow night, maybe.
So for those of you watching on YouTube, uh we have a list here of what a,043 or something.
>> Yep. And yes, and Mr. Chairman, that is on um on the website now 12-02 in the in the online meeting materials.
>> Okay. So if anyone has insomnia, uh always jump in and read the criminal code and see where we're at. Uh I just can't say thank you enough for the work that went into this document. Uh it it's uh while there's it remains quite a bit of work ahead of us, I think this document really streamlines options for the committee. And so um committee before we start taking testimony and stuff, I just kind of like to uh get a sense of the of the committee's preferences. I think there are a number of options available to us.
one, we can just stick with title six and and not look at the other criminal statutes. We can just look at crimes with mandatory minimums. We can just look at violent crimes. We can just look at felonies and exclude the misdemeanors. Um there's a variety of approaches available to us. Uh each of which will dictate time and effort. And I know that uh uh summers and even numbered years for those in the House who are running for reelection uh get to be very busy times. But we can form working groups. We can have a working group on misdemeanors. We can have a working group on felonies. We could have a working group on personal crimes, a working group on property crimes. Uh a lot of different options available to us. Um rather than dictating that from the chair, I I would like to have a little discussion among the committee if anyone has a preference on strategy for how we might eat this elephant.
>> Mr. Chairman, >> Senator Craig, >> Mr. Chairman, I just a question. I guess I think what would really help us make that decision is what are we are we intending to have our product this year or are we thinking about a multi-year project? Um how much do you want to bite off because of the elephant? uh because I think that's going to determine what we do and how far we go and if you know for example I mean that it might mean simply doing title six this year and just starting the project um or maybe it's just doing felonies you know most of the felonies are going to be in six and seven um maybe it's attacking the felonies I don't know I mean and it's sort of it was your idea Mr. chairman.
So I think maybe you know how far you want to go really is going to determine what the rest of us and or are willing to do.
Ah great question. uh you know when when this was put forward for interim discussion it was specific to title six and then as we realized how many of our criminal codes are scattered in the other chapters uh we started broadening the the spreadsheet effort. My thought is is if we take a small piece of it perhaps this year, we might learn from the process and discover perhaps improved processes that we might use in the future for other facets of Senator Cole.
>> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think being the fact that we're in an election cycle, fact is that a lot of people might not show back up again. I think I think the best course in my point of view, Mr. Chairman, is to is to try to get a product out, try to take a piece that we can work this interim and get it done because there's no asurances that frankly any of us might not sure I'll be here, but the the the body might change quite a bit. So I I think the opportunity is and it's a good one and it's an issue you found. I think we should try to do as much as we can that's achievable during this interim, Mr. chairman to have a to have something to uh have accomplished. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Further represent Lee.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I might ask that we go all the way to title eight because there's only one in title eight and then that would get us Title 7's pretty short.
Just my my two cents.
It gets you to page five about halfway down. So, it's your recommendation we take up uh one statute 8-7.
>> No, no, no. The recommendation is that we use >> the first four and a half pages of the spreadsheet.
>> Oh, okay.
>> That would be a possibility. We'll see what the body thinks. Representative Filer.
>> Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I I think too there a while back the legislature also used to have an archaic law committee and I think as we go through this maybe we find those laws that are very archaic and maybe remove try to try to remove some of those out of the criminal code that way we could kind of maybe shorten up the green books a little bit but something that's not you know really something that has to do with our society today if that makes sense as we do this >> Mr. Fuller, when you put this together, did you notice any outliers? Anything that just kind of stood out?
>> Um, Mr. Chairman, you know, with with the caveat that it's entirely up to the committee to decide, you know, what what's an outlier, what's not an outlier. Um, I you know, I mentioned the the money transmitter um offenses having only minimums, no maximums. Um the only other item maybe I I would note would be um in title 13. Um and this would be not sure about the page number. It's on the bottom of I think page six. Um many of the offenses in the banking statutes also have mandatory minimums.
in that um that was that's one area that that I noticed um because mo if you look at most of the other offenses in the other titles um you know typical to title you know similar to title six there's not um you know there's there's a smattering of mandatory minimums. Most of the offenses in this title appear to have um mandatory minimums intera do you know are those uh replicas of federal law due to the banking industry?
>> Mr. Fuller.
>> Yep. Mr. Chairman, Representative Lean, I I don't at this at this moment.
Further comments from the committee about process It's a big elephant. U you know, my recommendation is is that uh uh you know, things like the game and fish statutes and and banking statutes and some of those things, they weren't things that I was contemplating when when I proposed a review. Uh, I'll tell you, you know, the one that stood out in my mind was was the felony eluding and aggravated assault where the elements are almost identical, but one's a 5-year felony and one's a 10-year felony.
That's one that jumped out at me. And so, that's what prompted me to to suggest that maybe we take a look at this. Um, at the time I made that motion, I knew it was going to be a project. Uh, I didn't quite anticipate this. I I think this is an enormous project and uh so I appreciate the committee's uh uh interest. Uh I think if the committee is agreeable, let's shrink this elephant a bit just to title six.
Just look at title six. Just look at our criminal code um in title six and then uh work through it by color code. look at the bright red ones, you know, uh those that have 50-year maximums and death.
Uh and then maybe look at at the uh uh uh little slightly less read 20 years to life type statutes. and it's break them down and work through them by uh severity of maximum penalty would be my strategy idea.
The other option would be just today to form up working groups um and have those working groups make their own decision about how to eat the elephant. And my suggestion would be if we go the working group approach that we might have a couple of different working groups. Uh one focused on uh personal crimes, maybe one looking at property crimes and uh see what kind of headway we can make. um and a working group can come back to us in August and say, "Here's some suggestions for maybe how we might want to streamline this or expand this or uh whatever the working groups might come up."
Representative Chester, I was going to make the same suggestion.
I think that um doing working groups based on the c the type of crime makes sense to me. I mean, there's still a lot of judgment into what fits into what category, but a lot of that's already done by um the section of the of the of the criminal code. There's a whole section that deals with property crimes.
There's others that deal with personal crimes. So, I think a lot of that work is already done. So, we can take a look.
Um, and it makes sense because some conduct would fit a range, you know, if if this conduct could be either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on how bad the conduct was or who the victim was or any kind of other factors. Uh, so I I don't think we can separate it out um misdemeanor versus felony. It's got to be by category, by type of crime makes the only thing that makes sense to me.
So I would I would support um breaking it down in that way.
>> Commentary on this idea. Any discussion?
>> Senator Craig.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I mean I I'm not opposed to that if someone is going to decide which crimes go where. Um I mean so 62 all everything in 62 is going to be crimes against the person. 63 is offenses against property. Then you get into 64, that's morals, decency, and family. I don't know where that goes.
Um, and so you're going to And then 65's offenses against public administration.
I mean, the the green books set out a title for each chapter, but that doesn't necessarily determine whether it's crimes against the person or crimes against, you know, offenses against property. I don't know who's making that determination. and who are we going to task with going through all of that? If you want to just divide it by chapter, I think that's fine and say this working group's going to do 62 and this group's going to do 63. But I think that would be easier than saying person or property. Just do it by chapter if we're going through title six.
>> And Mr. Chairman, >> if if I may, you know, one one possible option, you know, trying to group the crime so there's not, say, you know, seven or eight um working groups would be to have chapter 2, the offenses against the person. Chapter 4, the offenses against morals, because that does include some offenses against um against persons. Chapter six, the offenses against public peace. You know, that includes things like fighting. Um and then maybe chapter eight, the weapons. um would would group together.
And then chapter three, offenses against property, chapter five, against offenses against public administration, and chapter seven, offenses against public policy could go together. Um chapter 9 are miscellaneous offenses. Um that probably would fit better with I think the property um type offenses. Um I I don't think I think most in in that chapter 9 are not um involving, you know, victims like the others might.
>> Mr. Fuller, I think that's an excellent suggestion. Uh, so working group number one would deal with chapters uh 62, 64, 66, and 68. Is that correct? And then working group two would deal with chapter 63, 65, 67, and 69.
>> Even and odd.
>> That make sense?
>> Even and odd basically. Yeah. Simple enough. So, let's start with the committee. I'd like to have uh three legislators on each working group uh without duplicating legislators on both working groups. Uh it'd be nice if we could get three. Maybe we only get two, but uh be nice if we could get three on each working group. Representative Lean, which one would you like?
>> And I volunteer for the evens. Evens >> I know as well >> and Brady for the evens.
>> I'll do the odds. Odds are the property.
>> Chestic will go with the odds.
>> I'll I'll I'll volunteer for the odds.
Mr. >> Same goes with the odds.
Need one more for each.
>> How about some senators?
>> They're kind of quiet over here. I've noted any senators interested in our working group.
>> There's only three of us.
>> I think we should volunteer. Senator Hicks. Senator >> Senator Hicks will be on both working groups at the planet.
>> Never missed the meeting. Huh.
>> Senator Crumb.
>> Senator Crumb.
>> He was online earlier. Is he off?
>> We have two there. Senator Hick. Senator Cron, >> Mr. Chairman, you can put me wherever you need.
>> Okay. Uh, but Senator KGO on the the uh evens.
>> Senator Olsen.
>> I guess I'll take team odds.
>> Senator Olsen will take the odds.
Okay. We have legislators.
Um then as we look back at uh some of our volunteers in the earlier hour um we're going to look for some prosecutors, at least one, preferably two for each working group. And I'll leave that to you to communicate back to the committee the names and emails and phone numbers for two prosecutors for each of those working groups and two public defenders.
uh and two uh lawyers from the private sector.
Okay. Um and chiefs and sheriffs, at least one on each working group. I'll take two if you have them. Okay. And uh then somebody from victim services. Uh, so it could be uh Miss Chambers, it could be others who she recommends from district attorneys often have their own victim services units. Some of the law enforcement agencies have victim services, but I'd like to have somebody from the victim services area. And then the judicial branch, it'd be great if we could get at least one judge um for each of those working groups. And then so I'd ask within the next week if you would communicate with Mr. Fuller uh at the LSO uh the names and contact information of your appointees. If you haven't been able to finalize within a week, please let us know that it's still a work in progress. You haven't yet firmed up. I know sometimes it's hard to get people to step up and commit. Um okay, that makes sense. And uh so the committee knows I'll do my best to participate in both working groups.
Okay. Uh since I I brought the elephant into the room, uh I'll stand behind him.
Okay. And uh uh and so Miss Butler will be on both of those working groups.
Clerks, anybody want to be on a working group? See any interest or need for clerks to be on this working group or not?
not necessarily in your Bailey wick but uh all right so we have a structure kind of a process to start taking the spreadsheet carving it up into pieces examining anything that just looks uh unbalanced right that if there's outliers as you define them as a working group if there are policy issues that you say you know we're not sure we need a mandatory minimum in 2026 for uh riding on a freight train, right? Uh come back to the committee with your recommendations.
Uh if you say good as written, no changes needed, that's fine, too. Uh statute by statute within your sections.
uh if you come up with uh uh process improvements as you work through these and say, you know, if we take up title 35 next time or we take up another title next time, uh maybe we should do it slightly differently. Uh boy, wide open for feedback from the working groups.
Okay. And for members who did not volunteer for a working group, um if you want to participate, I encourage you to do so. Uh I think the working groups um maybe you can't make everyone but certain things you know as you look through the spreadsheet you go really uh feel free to communicate with those working groups. Uh so I think what I'll do is is uh appoint a chairman for each of those working groups who'll kind of uh organize the the meetings of each of those working groups.
So, um, Representative Lean will chair working group number one and Representative Chestic will, uh, chair working group number two.
And so, it's just your your responsibility to schedule the meetings and times uh, probably be done over Zoom uh, to proceed through these things. Now, Mr. co-chairman, as I understand, working groups are not compensated. Is that the the classification there?
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman, the working groups are not compensated, but we can we can utilize staff um for the working groups.
>> Chairman, you understand that uh you can lean on your LSO staff?
>> There might be some coordinating trying to get them their availability for the meeting >> right through the summer. Yeah, >> but they can set up the Zoom meetings for you. They can communicate with all the members once we have those folks identified from the various stakeholder groups.
>> Senator Kel, >> Mr. Chairman, I was just going to couple things for staff thinking ahead to these to our working group meetings. one, it'd be nice to get an updated shrunk down spreadsheet for each of the groups based on the division that we've set up for the different chapters so that those of us that are on the workg group ahead of time could get the spreadsheet, be able to look through it. It's going to be much shorter and divide it in half. And then I was hoping yeah that we could have staff available to help us so that as we're going through we could create another essentially another column over here with change recommended changes or none essentially if staff could help us keep track of as we go through it as a working group. Yep. We need to do this.
We don't need to do anything etc. so that when we get to the end, we actually have the notes we need to give to staff to do our bill draft if any.
Mr. Fuller, does that sound doable?
Okay. And I know staff has other committees obligations and so forth throughout the summer. So, uh, the one advantage of having a large working group is it lots of hands, lots of perspectives. The difficulty is Wyoming summers are only so long and people have busy lives and and uh harder to get everybody together. But hopefully with a larger work group, even if everybody isn't available, if the majority is available, the working group can still plug through and get some good work done. Okay, that's my goal.
Everybody clear on how we're going to jump into title six? Um and then you know uh future meetings we can discuss. We'll see how title six progresses before August. Maybe we want to take up one of the other uh sections of uh criminal statutes in addition to six if if we progress quickly through the chapters in title six.
At this point, I'll take some public comment about I was just gonna Yeah, progressing would be um fun. I would really like to get to the prime for feeding a dog ground glass.
I think that there's some important ones in shearing sheep's ears.
So, >> you know, I'm hoping >> priorities have changed through the years. Uh >> I I I was looking at desertion of spouse um don't remember the last time I saw that in the newspaper that uh somebody was prosecuting for desertion of spouse, but uh you know there's there's lots of things in here we can look at and uh take a look at. So now I'd like to take some public comment from folks in the room as you understand how we're going to approach this. If you have thoughts or ideas, now might be the time to come forward and share whether you um have a perspective on u eating this elephant chapter by chapter and chapter six title six. Anybody in the room?
Anybody on Zoom?
Representative Bratton, you've been very quiet today. I'm going to call on you.
your perspective on uh this approach.
>> No, that's the spreadsheet was uh Mr. Chairman was uh was was quite a a feat and I thank LSO for um putting that forward and and um even though I didn't officially um offer to be on either one of these two committees, I am definitely interested in following along and um you know participating in them. So, thank you.
>> Anyone else?
Okay. Uh, I just want to thank the stakeholder groups that uh I know everybody's busy. You've all got plenty on your plates and and uh for members of the agencies and and uh uh chiefs and sheriffs and victim service coordinators and others who private counsel going to step in and uh uh contribute to this civic effort. Uh thank you. Uh uh it I think the end result will be worth the effort. I really do. Uh it was eyeopening to read through the spreadsheet. It it uh if you haven't had a chance yet, I encourage you to to pick up a coffee or or go online and take a look. Uh the variety of crimes and penalties that have evolved through the years. Uh uh one thing that would be interesting is as we get electronic talking uh working on our electronic court records is if we could figure out a way to see how often different statutes are actually prosecuted enforced, you know, and and how many of them are there primarily as a deterrent, but nobody's ever getting prosecuted for feeding glass to a dog. Maybe we've deterred all the vicious people who would feed glass to a dog and therefore but I uh as we talk about deterrent, we talked a little bit about deterrence yesterday. Um seems to me that deterrence only works if people know that it's a crime and number two what the penalty might be. Uh and I've often thought uh Mr. Thompson that publicizing criminal penalties in our jails would be a wonderful idea.
The word could spread. Did you know?
Yeah.
So, with that committee, uh, it's 11:00.
I don't want to move into the 1:30 afternoon topic in case there are other people out in the U state that are going to want to participate in that discussion.
uh thinking is going to be this afternoon and only to find out that we dealt with it, dispensed of it before lunch. So, with that, uh we're going to break for lunch. Uh we'll come back sharply at 1:30 and uh jump into our afternoon session.
No objection. All right, we'll stand in recess until 1:30.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
