 Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Friday, April 3rd, and we are continuing our consideration of S3. And this morning we'll be working with legislative council. We don't have any witnesses scheduled. And we're looking at draft 4.1 of S3, which is also on our committee page under legislative council Eric Fitzpatrick's name for today. For those of you who are watching on YouTube. And 4.1 represents a combination of the recommendations from the other committees that have have taken testimony and to read to this bill, as well as we as a committee have looked at and talked about thus far, although we have not taken any formal votes or straw poll votes on those those sections, but they primarily represent what we've heard consensus on from our witnesses. So with that, welcome and thank you Eric. Hi, good morning everybody Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Council here to do a quick walkthrough of the version 4.1 that you have in front of you of S3, which is an act relating to competency to stand trial and insanity as a defense. There are very few changes between this draft and the previous draft so I'm going to move pretty quickly. I think it's all going to be pretty familiar to folks, but I can refresh your recollection briefly as to what's in the bill. Starting right away with version number 4.1 again the highlights show actually you got two different color highlights. The yellow highlights are showing the changes between the bill as passed by the Senate and what the this committee has so far got in there as changes. The blue highlights show changes that have been made between the previous draft and this draft. So, as you'll see there's very few of those because there have been very few changes. Other than the fact that section six which is the forensic care work group does not have any very few highlights because it's really, you can't do a highlight to show the changes in that section it's completely rewritten. It's just the new language from the House Healthcare Committee draft that the committee had looked at last week that's now been inserted in there. But don't, don't be, don't be distracted by the fact that there's very few highlights. It's in there because that doesn't mean there haven't been any changes. It just means it's a whole rewrite so couldn't really do it that way. So, having said that let's start from the beginning section one has to do with the initial psychiatric examination or in some cases examination by a psychologist. That's required when a criminal defendant raises the issue of competency to stand trial or sanity at the time of the offense. So, quickly moving through, you'll see where some of the yellow highlights are we went through this last time this language clarifies that sometimes the exam is done by a psychiatrist sometimes by a psychologist, depending on whether it's an examination of the person's developmental disability in which cases would be a psychologist, otherwise a psychiatrist. When that exam is done the report. The summary of the report is provided to you'll see additions here to the respondent that's criminal defendant, as well as Dale because they are involved in these developmental disability cases. Subdivision to there is the one that the committee has been discussing no changes proposed as of yet although we may get to this after this general walkthrough as to possible changes to this subdivision. So, the sequence issue in those cases where the psychologist and psychiatrist, sorry, the psychiatrist and potentially the psychologist are asked to provide opinions on both competency and sanity. This section specifies that they're going to be done in separate reports, so that they're not combined into one report because as we talked about these are separate issues. They're not the same thing so it makes sense for them to be conducted the examination to be conducted separately. And it also specifies that the sanity examination is only done. And if the person is first found competent to stand trial, and the idea being that person would never be able to raise a sanity defense that they weren't first found competent to stand trial because standing fence is only raised at trial. So, or beforehand but with the understanding that the person's going to try so person has to be competent for that to come into play and that's why that sequence is proposed there and there's the new language added that to not to address the issue of potential loss of evidence or memories not being as good later on, if the sanity examination isn't conducted to further down the road say for example the defendant regains competency five years later. Still instructed the psychiatrist I mean, even though they're not doing the sandy examination yet to still collect and preserve any necessary evidence. So that later on years down the road if they have to provide a sanity report at that time they would still have that evidence there they wouldn't have to go back and find it. Starting from scratch. So that section one section to has to do with the hearing remember after it if the person is found either incompetent stand trial or insane at the time the offense there's a hearing that's held to determine whether or not the person is a danger to themselves or others and if they are they would be committed to custody of either DMH or Dale, this language and so be there clarifies that a copy of the report. Sorry, that that the person's entitled to have counsel at that hearing from legal aid, and that both DMH and Dale are able to appear at the hearing and call witnesses. Section three is the victim notification piece. Remember this is at after the person has been committed to DMH. So you're further down the timeline is the person replies to a person who's already been committed. Before they're at least 10 days before their status has changed rather in DMH custody when I say their status has changed I mean, for example they before they would either be discharged from DMH custody, or have their treatment level stepped down from hospitalization to the non hospitalization or before their commitment order expires if any one of those things happens, or is about to happen 10 days from now. Then the department has to notify the state's attorney or the attorney general whoever prosecuted the case, and then the essay or the AG has to provide notice to the victim. The same procedure would apply if the, if the person elopes from DMH custody which essentially means escapes, please. In that situation also notice would be required for the essay and the AG who would then in turn have to provide notice to the victim. As you can see the struct provision there has to do with that separate notice provision that is now been moved into the forensic care work group and that's the, the different situation in which a person on an order of non hospitalization and the community isn't complying with their order or, or the alternative treatment isn't working. That's that whole concept of, as the bill came over from the Senate, in that situation, there would also be notice required to the essay and the AG. The main here is to move that out of the statutory requirement piece and put it in the forensic care working group so that they can study, you know what should be done in that situation, what circumstances should trigger the notice and what should the essay or AG do with the notice once they get. So that issue will be looked at in the by the working group. Section four is the disclosure to the prosecution of the, or sorry actually the examination by the prosecution the prosecution. Currently under current law can ask the court for an order that the defendant submit to a psychiatric examination. This is where the defendant is raising a standard defense, this provision expands that to a competency proceeding so when defendants, when the defendant's competency is at issue. In a criminal case, this allows the prosecution to also ask the court for a psychiatric examination of the defendant, after the independent psychiatric examination has been done. So now we're moving on to the reports and studies provision of the, of the amendment, and you'll see remember these are the two sections that the Department of Committee on Healthcare looked at and this committee review those changes proposed by the Department of Committee on Healthcare asked me to put those sections into this bill so that's where we are now we're still working from a House Judiciary Committee strike on them and put those sections from the House Healthcare amendment have been moved into this version. The first one is the assessment of mental health services that Department of Corrections is contracting with to provide for a person under deals persons under DOC supervision and this requires DOC and the Department of Mental Health to do an inventory and evaluation of those mental health services that are provided by the entity for whom with whom they contract. The language is, is it exactly the same as what the committee looked at last week Katie walked the committee through the language. You'll see in this case. I was able to use yellow highlights to show what the changes are between what came over from the Senate, and what is being proposed here because it, although there were quite a few changes the way it was set up structurally, it lent itself to being able to see what the new provisions are so you can see that as it came over from the Senate and subsection C subdivision one, you know that the substance of the evaluation included that first part comparison as to how the type frequency and timeliness of mental health services provided in the correct setting, different from those that are available in the community, but then this, these other pieces that are in yellow were highlighted. I sorry, we're added by health care committee and agreed to by this committee so all those other pieces are new Katie walk you through them last week I'm not going to go through them all line by line but it's just more substantive work that the, that the departments would have to do for purposes of this inventory and evaluation the assessments and comparisons of the mental health services that sort of thing, you will see to go down the subsection D now this is highlighted in blue. You should see that in blue on your document now that's because this is something that this committee, after having reviewed the health care committee's proposals, wanted to add. And it's the same concept is added in two places but this is just an overarching requirement for for the, the evaluation that's being done by the departments of corrections and mental health under the section for purposes of that entire evaluation, this language applies and that says in conducting the required to the work required by this section, which is the evaluation we just talked about the OC and DMH shall ensure that social and racial equity issues are considered, including issues related to transgender and gender non conforming persons. So that's sort of a broad requirement that applies throughout the work that's required by that section for a value to their mental health services. So, moving on to section six, the, you'll see a couple of changes that are in blue here as well this is what the committee talked about, after having reviewed the healthcare committee's proposal. So this language is essentially the healthcare committee's proposal and the first part actually the first subsection I should say the chains were pretty minor so I was able to use some you know highlighting just to show what they were about the senate version and your document so really just some some language at the beginning but a couple of key points. So this committee is added to the forensic care working group representative from Dale that subdivision to the Department of Building General Services was in the senate version but was struck by the house healthcare attorney discussion of that during Katie's walkthrough so I'm not sure if that was a conscious decision or an oversight. Maybe something that we'd want to follow up on I just figured I'd know that I really don't know I haven't haven't asked Katie yet. But I just figured I pointed out because it was in the senate version and was not in health care the healthcare committee's amendment. Yeah. I'm sorry. Is it okay if I ask Erica question about that before we move on. Did this. Do you remember why the senate put buildings. Why, why the senate had them in there. Because they were, they figured it was a facilities, you know that's the related to facilities question. I think that was it. Yeah, I agree and I think because healthcare. I think it's about, you know, about assuming like there's an assumption that we are going to have a new facility that that sort of came came through in the senate or that was an interpretation of that came through in the senate version. I, I guess that's why it was taken out here but but I made a note to follow up as well. Yeah, thanks. Thanks for jumping in. And also right below that you see this committee also added the added the chief superior judge that was at at judge reasons request he also thought he should be on this work group as well. So last time increased the number of actually I think this was a health care point camera that the increase in the number of crime crime victims representatives sorry, and individuals with lived experience of mental illness. So in the case of crime victims representatives from two to three, and, and then for in the case of individuals with lived experience from one to three so you see those numbers are bumped up a little bit in subdivisions 11 and 14. And the plastic is something I think chair grad that you mentioned last time to add a representative from the front from on developmental disabilities council so they're in there as well. Yeah, Tom has his hand up. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, just mentioning these crime victims kind of triggered something, say if somebody. Something happens, and, and somebody is found. And so there's, in a sense there's no crime. If somebody is found that they're not competent or the sanity, sanity issues. So, but there is still a victim. So it is somebody still eligible or is there still help for them, even though there's not a crime committed. The definition of victim and the victim statutes is broad and as brought oftentimes written broadly. So that, for example, you know, sometimes the charges might get dropped, right, or or that there might be facts that would not lead to a criminal conviction but nevertheless, as a person could still qualify for a victim if they suffered a loss as a result of the defendant's action so yeah that it is broad enough to include that. Great thank you. Yeah. So moving on to the balance of the working group, you'll see that's from there on in there's no highlights but it's entirely that's just because that's entirely the house health care committees language that Katie walked you through last time and again there's a different structure of sort of phases of reporting you remember they're going to the forensic care working group first does a preliminary report to this committee and corrections and institutions committees health care committees. Honor before February 1 of 2022 so that's the first stage of the report. And at that point they sort of identify. Basically the issues the gaps in the current structure opportunities to, to improve the structure as well as competency restoration models. And it's at that point, I think the sort of one of the main differences between the bill that passed the Senate and the bill that, or the version that you're looking at now is that they're sort of set up so there's not yet a predetermined conclusion that a forensic facility would necessarily be required. So the issue is that this is being considered at this stage of the game. It may be that that's an advisable step but it may not be. And this initial report would start the ball rolling of considering whether or not that's, that's a good policy. And if you move on down to page 13 it's based on the recommendations in that preliminary report. The department then submits a second preliminary report to the Joint Justice Oversight Committee by July 1 of that year, as to whether or not a forensic facility forensic treatment facility is needed. So it's separated out those two things so that the initial analysis of the issues isn't sort of based on a preordained conclusion that a facility is the right approach. And then second stage of that is, as I said, that would be by February of 2022 then by July of 2022 months later, that's when the departments would make a recommendation to Justice Oversight about whether or not that's the right move. And it's phrased I think that way intentionally that's on line nine page 13, whether or not a forensic treatment facility is needed. I think it's phrased in that way it's phrased neutrally. So it's not suggesting that one conclusion is the right conclusion. So it's up to them to make whichever recommendation they feel is the right policy at that time. So then, honor before January 1 of the following year 2023 that's when the final report is due to the committees of jurisdiction this committee, HCI health care, etc. That finalizes these recommendations, including addressing the size scope of fiscal impact of any forensic treatment facility if one is recommended so they don't take that step of addressing, you know, the details of the facility which were kind of in the, in the initial part of the step as the vote came from the Senate saves this till till later on it's dependent upon there being a recommendation that the treatment is needed in the first place sorry that the facility is needed in the first place. And that's pretty much sums it up you'll see oh sorry I'm page 14 lines 13 to 14, adding a little language again, this committee had talked about last time regarding. This is an overarching direction to the forensic care working group doesn't just apply in part of their work it actually applies throughout their work you say you see in line 10 and conducting the work where the work required by the section so it applies broadly to all their tasks that they are charged with completing by this section. They have to ensure and submission a that social and racial equity issues are considered, including issues related to transgender and gender non conforming persons so that doesn't apply to any one particular piece of the forensic care working groups. Mission implies throughout. I think that was something that committee want to make sure. Thank you I see Barbara's hand is up so excuse me Eric. Sure. Thank you. Keep getting the habit of lowering my hand right away okay so Eric. I know that it talks about gaps and needs for treatment, but it sounds like treatment facility gets its own billing and sort of a higher. Elevation then filling in the gaps for other treatment services. Am I interpreting that incorrectly. I didn't read it that way. Okay, to me, to me it reads as one option among many others including community treatment and various others but that's really sort of. I admit that I think that's in the eyes of the beholder to some extent. Okay. Okay, because I wondered if one of the gaps that comes up is like supervised housing or something that's that is. Short of like an inpatient treatment residential option. But we don't need to spell that out I mean it doesn't really say that it just, it talks generically about everything else. That's the way I read it yes. Okay. Thank you. Sure. And Eric, I have a question in there in here somewhere is there a statement that that the working group can have subcommittees. I was looking for is there something like that or and if not, do we need to have that because I, there are a lot of people is a big group. I don't think that it's in there and I also I don't, it's not that you can't put it in I don't think it's necessary. I don't think, I don't think they are prohibited from having them but you certainly there's nothing wrong with spelling it out if you'd prefer to I think it's, it's either it's really your choice but I don't think the, the way it's written precludes them from establishing subcommittees if they think that would be helpful. Okay, great thank you well let's. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you then for now. That's fine. Thank you. Sure. Pretty much brings us to the end. There's the appropriation of $25,000 for for the work. At the very end that it's also an addition from that. Senate version. You also so in section seven is new in its entirety this year members the expansion of the. The, it adds the, one more member appointed at large by the Senate and as well the chair of the House Committee on Healthcare. So expands that membership. Sorry, sorry, sorry, excuse me. Ken has his hand up. Go ahead Ken. Oh, sorry. Can't hear you can. Sorry, thank you. Has it already been determined that we need a. I can't pronounce the right for as neck. Facility. Has it that been talked about in detail. It's been talked about, but I don't think there's consensus on it. I would think that would be really, really important. With everything that we're dealing with on this bill and everything and going back and forth. I would think it will be. Not even an issue that we need that. We need to have a. A, you know, being looked at and spending money for that. And I assume Eric, Eric, you probably can't answer this, but I assume there's no COVID money for that to help or anything like that. And I don't know who I would ask that to. Yeah, I don't know the answer. Sorry represent Boston. It might be something for someone in JFO probably be able to. Give you more information on that as to whether or not some of the COVID funds could be used for that purpose. Okay, thanks. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah, thank you, Eric. I agree that certainly has been talked about in this. This draft from the, especially the healthcare committee does, does give the opportunity to continue that discussion. So it's not ruling it out, but it's not making that assumption and that was something that was important to, to that committee, but it's, it is referenced in there. Okay. Thank you, Eric. Sure. So, so thank you so much so that any questions. Otherwise, in terms of that particular draft. Okay, not seeing any. Okay, great. So then, trying to think Martin actually turn it over to you and then Eric can chime in if there are, if there's other language we should be looking at but please refer us to the section that you've been working on and what the committee and others can be looking at. Sure. The section is on the latest draft 4.1 it's not in there but just to orient you it's on page two at subsection two, but it I separately under my name is the proposed amendment. I can kind of walk through as far as why, why this proposal. It does. It tries to do well first of all let me let everybody get to that first. Just not if you're seeing the very colorful multicolored amendment blue and yellow. We good. Yeah, it should be under my name. You may have to refresh. You may have to like refresh the page if you're a little earlier. Because Evan added it not that long ago. So there's a that's trying to do three things and what actually one of them we've already seen. First, it's trying the first point and I'll turn to Kate to see if it actually addresses what what she brought up is to it isn't in case the these two exams are going to be conducted by two individuals. I think is what I'm trying to capture there. You know if the court orders examinations of both of both of these examinations. I'm trying to make it more more general. I'll let Kate way in if, if, if I captured what you were after or not you don't have to weigh in right now but so that's that's the first the second we already looked at and that is preserving evidence and that's what's in yellow. And we've already had Eric has talked about that we've talked about that a little, a little bit and I think we've had folks weigh in and I think they're generally fine with that part of it from what I understand. So, and then the third part has to do with some input that we've been receiving as far as making sure that the respondent, you know that we are trying to respect their wishes we're trying to respect the agency of the respondent or the respondent and being able to actually ask for both of these examinations to be occurring concurrently. And I took this from, though I didn't quite put it in right or correctly I should say from the American Bar Association criminal justice standards on mental health, which the language can be found, among other places in the letter we read from Will DeWight on April 15, 2021. That that provided some of the guidance but I put in an extra, an extra step of saying, well first let me read it says notwithstanding subdivision a of this of the subdivision. If it's found to the individuals found to be incompetent to stand trial the the subsection to a says don't do the sanity examination, although preserve the evidence but this is saying well notwithstanding that the court may order upon motion of the defendant and language that I still have a question about is I added and for good cause shown that the examination of the person's competency to stand trial and the person sanity at the time of the alleged defense occur concurrently. I have further language that based on some input, as far as protecting the defendant at that stage in the, in the proceeding from self incrimination, making it clear that if the defendant request that those examinations to occur concurrently. Only the defendant at that time would receive the sanity examination opinion or results. At least until the person is found competent to stand trial. So, the question I had the what I added was and for good cause shown. Well, first of all, I, we sent Evan sent this out to what we thought were really the relevant individuals to weigh in on this. We may still from input that we received from Jack McCullough, probably want to run it by the defender generals. I would think Maxine defer to you on that. And actually judge Greerson. Okay, and judge Greerson. Because we are. Yeah, the court may order anyway, yeah. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. So, but the responses, I believe Evan has posted those so you can see them yourself but essentially the response was favorable for this except not liking the and for good cause shown and and I think Jack McCullough and the white and and Donahue, all, I think, expressed why they didn't like that and it makes sense to me it's not a standard we need in there. The, so I've struck it in the provision or that you are seeing now, there is one question that I would have for everybody and that is, if we want to be closer to matching what the American Bar Association criminal justice standards on mental health applied, instead of striking and for good cause shown, we would change the and to an or because the language of the American Bar Association is that the examination should not occur at the same time, unless the defendant so requests, or for good cause shown the court so orders. I'm, I'm fine not putting in or for good cause shown and just leaving it simply to the request of the defendant, I think that gives the most deference to the defend what the defendants wishes are in this situation. So I'm inclined to just leave it as I have here and striking and for good cause shown because I think even adding or good cause shown adds some uncertainty as far as what we're talking about what does that mean. I think it's pretty clear what it means if the defendant request for it. You know the court still needs to order it that that's that's something that has to happen. But that that's, that's kind of where I am but I just wanted to flag that for individuals and, you know, for discussion. Thank you. Thank you Martin for taking the lead on this and thank you, Kate for bringing us here in part. Yeah, I think in terms of whether it's and or or for good cause shown. Given that Representative Donahue and others did not like the and for good cause shown I'm not sure that or would be any more palatable. So we open it up to. So Kate, go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, first I just wanted to express my gratitude to the committee and Martin and Eric. I've had this issue up multiple times and it may seem small, but I appreciate the patience with me and the willingness to incorporate different language for that first section that was changed. I think looks great to me if others are comfortable with it I just feel like it's more clarifying in my mind. And I like all the rest of the language I support striking and for good cause shown I also personally kind of feel like the language that was added in terms of providing that the psychiatrist and the applicable the psychologist shall collect and preserve any evidence necessary to form an opinion that's a sanity. If the person regains competence in my mind sort of maybe addresses that issue. Like, like that information will already be gathered based on that statute that we're talking about putting forward so that helps me feel comfortable striking that section. So yeah, I'm in support of the language and I appreciate the time taken on this. Okay, thank you, Tom. Thank you. Yeah, one of the things that I was going to, going to say is I wanted to hear from Kate but I think we both put our hand up at the, but the same time so. Yeah, I'm supportive of the new language and also of striking the, the and for good cause shown the concern people that that took a look at it I think if they thought, or was a good idea. You know just looking at the, you know, thinking of the experience of the people that were that were looking at this. I think if they thought or was a good idea they would have, they would have put it in but. So I would support taking that out and and again support the new language. Let's see. Bob. Sorry. Yes. Martin under. BBB report on the person's sanity shall not be made available to the prosecutor to the person's found competent to stay in trial. Why would the report be available to anybody if in fact, the person's not competent to stay in trial. So it would, it would, the way that I think subsection B and Eric and weigh in on this as well is set up is that you know the defendant will will have access to that the defendant will receive that but until competency is established. It doesn't go to the prosecutor. So nobody else really gets it except for the defendant and I think the way that this is supposed to be set up. Because it doesn't say that now does it just says it won't be a bit made available to the prosecutor which is fine. I would just wonder why I mean if the individual chooses I guess at some point. I guess I could ask Eric if we should, you know, a different way of putting that is that the report shall only be provided to the defendant, or the respondent, I guess is the proper word language. I think as far as I thought it was clear just from the whole provision overall that it would, you know, if the defendant is requesting it would go to the defendant but maybe it would be clear if instead of saying we're not going to provide to the prosecutor will say that we're going to provide only to the defendant. So we'll have that and also say and shall not be made available to the prosecutor. So it could be the report on the person Sandy shall be made available to the shall be provided to the respondent or defendant whichever word, and shall not be made available to the prosecutor until the person is found competent to stand trial. I mean, we have that. Reach better. Yeah. I mean, as far as how if that's necessary or I think that if you say it's only provided to the defendant, then it's not necessary to say that it doesn't go to the prosecutor to probably want to see it. Well except for the competence part I mean the idea I mean you're right. You're not mentioning competence. You know, saying the report on the person sanity shall only shall only be provided to the defendant. You're not mentioning competence. Right. Right. Something along those lines. Right. That's the idea though. Thank you. Thank you Bob for pointing that out. Okay. Barbara. Thanks. So I, I'm Martin. And Kate, very grateful for all the work I feel like this build is getting better by the day. The, or is something that I don't support either unless it's like. I mean, if it were for a good reason rather than or a good reason, because if it's or a good reason that someone else is raising it, it might not be so good for the defendant just mentally to have to go through that. And I would be in favor of taking it out. Okay. So I would I would think if we could just finesse that language if Eric could finesse that language a bit as far as, you know, the report on the person say shall be provided only to the defendant or respond it, and shall not be made available to the prosecutor until the person's phone competent to stand trial. And if we could strike the and for good cause shown, and then we can get it out to the defender and to the judge Greerson, does that sound like a game plan. Yeah, and actually the same, the people that that we already sent it out to because there are are some changes. And yeah, and see what see what they say and then I think depending upon what how folks respond. At that point I think we'll have a better idea of if we actually need them to come in and give testimony, or if we can just go on their written responses. And certainly if somebody has a strong issue or something it would be good to, to have them actually come in and so we could hear from them. So, what I'm thinking. Bob is your hand up from before do you have another just just quickly going back to what Eric said and versus what Martin just added to it here. That gave us the impression that the report of the person's sanity shall only be shall be made available up to the respond and or defendant that would pretty much cover everything else but Martin went on to add. He's not add that in there along with and shall not be made available to the prosecutor. Well, it's, it's however Eric wants to put the language but I think that's the concept the concept. It's available only to the defendant until the competency is is established. And I will leave the language wordsmithing to Eric. Unless you have a question is that makes, are you. Am I clear are we clear on that Eric. I think so I think it's one of those situations that we often encounter where language may not be technically necessary but you may want to have it for your comfort level. So, it's really, it's really I'm going to kind of put the ball back in your court, because I don't think it I don't think it's so legally necessary to say, and shall not be available to the prosecutor, but you may want it anyway, because maybe you, you feel like it sort of enhances your comfort level with the clarity. So, either way is fine, whichever. Yeah, so it would say you know, shall. You know, shall be made available only to the defendant, and then you could then include or not include the words and not be made available to the prosecutor. Well, yeah, and it's the key part of it is that until person's phone competent that that's that would follow either one yet. Right, right. I'd like to, I'd like to be clear. I'm for the extra words and clarity in this particular instance. It works that works for me. Okay, great. Thank you, coach. Thank you. And also, Kate, and Martin and Eric. Thanks for getting us to this point. What I, what I hear from the conversation, you know, is what we heard from testimony in a number of different bills around interpretation and the judicial interpretation. In cases that people used as illustrating how the different ways that the judges would approach a particular topic. Having as much clarity as possible in the statute leaves less room for interpretation that could be different than our intent, the legislative intent. So as long as we're not complicating a possible decision, it seems to me anytime that we can make a clearer statement. So there is no question about where our intentions were, we're better off. And this seems to do that, or at least that's what I'm sensing. Yeah, and thanks for your point, Bob, because, you know, that helped, you know, as well. But just just felt they needed to, you know, put that out there. Thank you. Thank you, coach. Good. Good point. I agree. Okay, good. Well, that I do think that this bill is coming together. Appreciate everybody's work on it. So, all right. We do have it scheduled at some point next week. So we'll, we'll keep working on it. Before we adjourn, I'm going to quickly update committee members. So this afternoon we are taking up S 99, which actually was just referred to us. We're going to hear some very compelling difficult testimony we have victim survivors coming to speak to us. So just give you give your heads up. And I, we just learned as we all did that we have a token session on Monday and so I've been trying to set things up with counsel so that we can decide whether or not to concur with the Senate's work on our on our bills so I'm not I have to think through again if that impacts our timing. I know on Tuesday we do have bring for use of force bill h 128 panic defense which I'm hoping that will concur. I don't think anything has changed and Selena can help with that. I believe h 199 Eric worked on that was the real estate bill right I think they just concurred with us they didn't make any changes. Yes that's correct. So that one is okay. So anyway so let me let me I also depends upon when these other bills come over from the Senate and that as of yesterday afternoon that wasn't known so I'll look at that but if we have to postpone for a day in order to determine whether or not to concur. We can or I'll get creative or something but to make sure that we all have the information that we need to to concur but I again I think the recommendations on 145 h 145 and h 128 will be to h 18, which is the sexual exploitation bill that that Tom took the lead on, I think in terms of the Senate changes to h 18 I think those sound seem to be fine, but they did put on another bill. It is the bill on human trafficking that this committee looked at before. However, we will be taking testimony on that and Selena has been taking the lead on that because not all of us are here when we did that before so we will take some testimony. And again I'm hoping that we will be able to concur with with that. Maxine with those two being combined. Well, will they need to be reported again on the floor. On any level or Yes, so. Yes. Yeah. So, so whoever reports it and it can be more than one member so for instance Tom you might report the h 18 part of it. You know the original h 18 saying that we concur with that portion of it, and why, and then you might want to refer to somebody else on the other or or report it whatever but Yeah, that's what was going through my mind. Yeah, if we had to report it again and I assume that when we do the the walkthroughs or take another look at it that Michelle will be be with us. Absolutely. Yeah, I think we're doing that on Wednesday. Okay, great. So it. So it may actually be that we're concurring with the Senate. But because that second portion is a Senate bill, they'll have to be some reporting on that. Right. Right. The good Samaritan piece and Ms. Lee has been working on our witnesses for that, which I appreciate. So anything else before we, before we turn for lunch. Did we, did we do the good Samaritan earlier this year, or was that last year. It was last year. Yeah, it all runs together doesn't it. Right. It was, yeah, it was last year and then it actually had a report on it. But the report is not part of part of our consideration. It's just a good Samaritan piece. Okay. And we did do it last year. Yeah, we had a strong vote on that audit committee didn't we. Right. So I'm sorry I'm getting mixed up. So, okay, we did do it last year, but, but the we that are this committee. Right. No, no, no last year. We had a strong vote on that committee, which is right. Sorry, isn't a totally different committee, but is a totally different committee. Let somebody listening figure that one out. Right. But last year's committee had a strong vote if I remember right. Correct. Thank you. Thank you. It was, it was. Yeah, absolutely. It was unanimous. Yeah. Committee and it was, it was. Maybe not quite unanimous, but maybe unit and was like nearly unanimous. Heading over to the Senate, we could go back and look at that vote, but it was, was a super strong vote. Thank you. Okay. I assume we'll be going over any changes that the Senate made or, or. I don't think they made any Michelle, the email I saw Maxine probably. Okay. The email I saw from Michelle, so they adopted exactly the language. Okay, so it'll be a review last year. So it's really tracks like exactly. I don't actually know if they included the study. I'll go back and figure. Right. It's just the immunity of provision. Yeah, that's what I understood. Yeah. I think that tracks exactly to what we passed. Oh, that's great. That's great. Yeah. I think, I think it is great. And I think if there was any opposition on the floor last time, it was because of the study. Well, and no was. Well, was the reporter. So you probably remember. Better than I like what. The floor support was like. Yeah. And I think there was, there was some on the floor. There was some concern. About the good Samaritan portion just because, you know, people are coming up with. Maybe plausible scenarios, maybe implausible scenarios on what we could let someone get away with because they reported or. Was someone going to report just to get out of a. Crime sort of thing. But those were pretty minor. Yeah. On the floor, the vast majority of the pushback and interrogation was in regards to the study group. Yep. Exactly. Right. Right. Thank you, Will. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, you know, so, okay. Yeah. And again, if anybody hears of things moving. Also just, you know, just please let me know, because it's, it is hard to keep track of it all. So anyway. Okay. Great. We will.