 So I believe that Judge Greerson is here after his narrow victory in the retention. We're back live. Congratulations on your retention. You deserve it. Thank you very much, Senator. It's good to be back. Let's put it that way. It's actually a very strong vote. And thank you for all of you for your support. Thank you. So are we ready to go ahead then, Senator, on H-195? Yes. Okay. For the record, Brian Greerson, Chief Superior Judge, thank the chair and the committee for inviting the judiciary to testify on H-195. My testimony will be very brief because from our perspective, it's certainly a policy decision on the part of the legislature and the court judiciary does not take a position on the bill itself, only to say that if it is passed, I do not see any impact on the judiciary or on operations on the judiciary. And that's really all I have to say on this particular bill. Thank you. Hey, thank you. Are there any questions of Judge Greerson? Senator Nitka. So Judge Greerson, I had asked Commander Proudy about this and he explained it, but I'm just wondering still with regard to a confidential piece of evidence, I didn't know those existed before, but in terms of the court, if it has materials, what Commander Raymond said, I believe if I've got this right, that they might show a video that includes an image of a child and after the trial was over, they wouldn't leave the image there, but he mentioned that the court has a, does the court have a, explain to me what the court might have with regard to keeping something that came into court confidentially, confidential. How do you protect that from, and say a criminal case from being seen later? Let me first apologize for not being able to be present earlier. So I did not hear that testimony and I'm not sure exactly what type of evidence he's referring to, but there are different ways that that's handled. Oftentimes when someone is submitting a potential exhibit that may have confidential or information that is not going to be public, that is brought to our attention usually in the form of what we refer to as a motion to seal. And so the court is alerted in advance that there may be something within a document or a proposed exhibit that is confidential so that we can address that before we actually get into the process. And then during the course of a trial or proceeding, it may be necessary that the information be disclosed in that context, but then it could remain under seal. If it's evidence that's introduced in a trial, we do have to preserve the record. So it's there and it could remain under seal from the public, but it would still be part of a court record if that answers your question. It does and should it go unappealed to the Supreme Court? Obviously they could see it also, but I'm wondering are those records also in perpetuity sealed and protected? If something is maintained under seal, it would still be under seal or unconfidential within the file. In other words, think also, for instance, of our new case management system, juvenile records are all confidential. So they remain, we maintain the records, but they are maintained as confidential meaning access to those records is limited to whatever individuals, entities that are entitled to see them under the statutes. So there is a means within our system to mark documents as confidential even within this new case management system. Okay, thank you. Any other questions of Judge Gerrison? Thank you very much, Judge. Thank you, thank you. Before everybody leaves, I want to explain most of you are invited for the 1030 on H-128. Most of you have already testified. My intent was to just have, after we hear from Representative Small, to just have a discussion of the bill and to move forward with that. So there may be some confusion. I know John Campbell said he's gonna be late, which is fine, but it was inviting all of you for the markup period, not necessarily for more testimony, except hopefully clearer. All right, I don't know what Michelle, could you join us while I was stepping away from my electronic media? I missed part of the conversation, but are we square away with the use of the term electronic media rather than electronic devices? I'm fine with that. Commander Raymond was very helpful on that. Good. So is there any reason not move forward with this today? I believe you heard from everybody who testified in the other body, so. It truly is. I mean, it's rare that we have agreement from all sides. Probably take advantage of that. Are there any amendments that anybody has? I was very tempted to want to note down April 9th as the first time on my judicial committee career that there was actually a simple bill that turned out to be simple, but Phillip had too many questions, so I'm not sure I can put it into that category. I could mess it up by adding it to H18 instead in 103, but it really, H18 is the same area. Anyway, but I think we better off not to mess it up. So I take that Senator Benning as a motion to report favorably H195 as it came to us. There's no amendments, then we're just voting on the bill. Is that correct? Correct. Any further discussion? All right, hearing none. Peggy, would you please call the roll? Senator Benning. Yes. Senator Nica. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. While we've got all these people in the room, it might be helpful to have a little bit of a discussion about H103 as it relates to H18. Good Samaritan language. Yeah. Peggy, did we, we, next week we have markup of that bill, right? Hold on. Let me just look at the schedule and pretty sure. Yes, we do at 11 from 1115 to 1130 on Tuesday. Yeah. And that was just for markup, right? S18. S103, H1, S103. No, H18, S103. Okay, hold on. I was looking at the wrong one. S, okay. We have S103. Testimony from 10, 1015 to 1115. And then we have markup. 1115 to 12. Who do we have testimony from? David chair, Chris Fennell, Sarah Robinson and Matt Valerio. Remember why we have that we already heard from everybody. I think that's just on one, on the good Sam. Oh, okay. I think you've heard from everyone on H18. Okay. So are we good with H18? That's your bill, right? Yes. If you're good. What? Are you asking me if you're good? Yeah. We've got any changes to H18. That's the bill that would. Right. We don't have that on the agenda next week at all. The only, um, The only thing outstanding that I remember was. There was some back and forth about. I'm looking at it now. See on page two. Simulation applies to conduct, not to a simulated child. But I think that. AG's office had said that they were okay with removing that. But the committee hadn't taken any position. I don't, I don't think I missed any later discussion on that. But. I think the last bit was that to change that to, you know, I don't know if I can strike the last clause. I see. You could just take it out. If you wanted to as well. And I thought that the AG's office was going to check. What their folks, but. My bills. That was a question here too. I think someone else. Here's, I have written down as the decision. With regard to see. Leave the child. As it is without the. New words actual in front of it. That was a decision we made. I thought that was another piece. So there was a, there was a question over whether to add the word actual to child. And then there was a, I thought a separate question about the phrase simulated child. In C. In C. I would be personally, I'm fine with either eliminating it or making a change that Michelle. Just suggested changing it to only. And getting rid of not to a simulated child. But maybe we should hear from. David share again on that. Not sure. Do you want to comment? Sure. David share with the attorney general's office. I think we're okay with that. I don't have any objection to. Any of the three options that are being discussed with that, either keeping it, eliminating it or Michelle's. Idea of. Only conduct and then eliminating everything after the comma. I think we're okay with any of those. And just to be clear, we would still oppose this with any of those changes. But we would still oppose this with any of those changes. We would still oppose this with any of those changes. But we would still oppose this with any of those changes. It would still be an actual child or a real child. Because that's the language that the courts use. So Marshall. Yes. In other words, your, your objection. To. Different. Regardless of what we do with C. It's the same issue because it's both different ways to capture the same concept. Which is that this can't apply to. Simulated children. And it's not clear enough. What the law is. What the law clearly dealt with. Is the way that the courts have dealt with it, which is by saying that the victim has to be a real child or an actual child. Whereas the change to say. Conduct applied or simulation applies to conduct, not to child. We think is not clear enough. And in such a serious. Offense. It's important to be very clear and to have the language. And to have. You know, Absent language that says. Actual child or real child. We're going to continue to oppose it. Well, it's not settled. But we're going to have this argument. No matter what. It's an argument that. That's, that's why I wrote down what the decision. That we seem to have come to. And underlined it in red. So we already sort of. At least that was my take on it. Yeah. My, my sense was that the, the committee. Didn't want to go in the direction of saying actual child. Earlier on, and then. If you're not going to do that. I don't think it makes sense to do. The simulated child. Language and C. So it seems like you either do both. Or neither. So that's, that's why I would get rid of not to a simulated child and just say. Applies to conduct only. Is that the way you see it, Michelle? I don't, I mean, I see them as the same issue. And I think if you're not going to have actual child. I think it is good to have seven C in there. I think if you're discomfort is saying not to a simulated child, I would take that out. But even though. If you take out that last clause, seven C is just reiterating what you have earlier in the intro language and seven, which is clear that it's just applying to conduct, but I think it is helpful. I don't think, I mean, certainly you have established in this body as well as the other body, a clear legislative record. That is that it is no one's intent that this. Is a simulated child. So while the, the, there may, if you choose not to include the word actual child in the definition, it's not going to, I don't think it's going to be particularly difficult for the court to ascertain that the intention was, you know, by the language that you have in there in seven saying that it only applies to conduct. Plus the legislative record. Plus all the previous cases and the common understanding that simulated children should not be a part of this. I don't think I'm not concerned that the court's not going to know what you're doing here, but I do think having a little something in seven C. Belts and suspenders in terms of the language on the page when you open up the statute without knowing the context behind it. So I would recommend that you do have a little something in seven C. That was the, that was the way because there was a disagreement between the defender general's office and the attorney general's office about whether or not. Child in the definition. The inclusion of seven C was to try to strike a balance there to address the issue, but in a way that was palatable to the attorney general's office and not changing the definition of child for that chapter. So I think do you have concerns with the language that I proposed about just kind of tweaking it. And then just not amending the definition. Or you just feel like it's superfluous. I'm good. No. Yeah, I was, I was arguing in favor of what you. Okay. Suggested. Yeah. I don't have the same concerns as the defender general's office. If you have that and then you have the legislative record and then you have the appropriate information. So. That's fine. And we'll just, we'll just go into your context. I think it's pretty clear in there that it's just applying to. And your language, Michelle is what. I would just, if you look at. Can I ask, can you see. Yes. Which it's mine. I can't see it. So on seven C as it passed from the house, it just says simulation applies to conduct, not to a simulated child. It's somewhat repetitive because if you look at the lead in on seven a simulation means the explicit depiction of any conduct. You know, I think I, I like, see the way that it is there and as passed by the house but I think you could strike that second clause in there if that's, if that's your preference. This simulation means the explicit depiction of any conduct described in sublation to a through after this section. And then you would now have C reading simulation applies only to conducts. Yeah, right. Yep. And I. So that would be the change to make to 18. I'm still wrestling with it. I think it would be presidency and not using the term actual child. I think the disagreement was that it would present to a court as new language. Is that right Michelle. There's a there's a couple issues one is that it's changing the definition of child we have a definition of child, you know throughout the statutes. You're amending the definition and then you have the same and you can obviously have this the same word and it can mean different things in different chapters for purposes only of that chapter. But there are it. It does kind of beg the question of when it's different in one place well why is it. If you're specifically saying that definition, you know, that it means an actual child, then you have that term elsewhere in the titles, and it does and you don't amend it to say actual child. Well then the question in those other definitions. Is there something contemplated beyond an actual child. Do you have saying so through. So it kind of calls those other definitions in a question and then again it's a it's a definition section that's applying to the whole chapter and then the Attorney General's office had a concern about having, I think an additional burden of proof there but I would let David make that argument because it. I didn't share it so I so. But making it clear for legislative intent. I would not intend to loop in a simulated depiction. You're comfortable if we struck seven C's last phrase that it would be consistent with current case law. Yeah, I think see the way it is, is the best approach, if you're not going to amend it to say act and or say in somewhere at the term actual child which is what the Attorney General's office is trying to avoid I think that seven C as what you have presented and then the house pass version is the best way to go about it but that was my initial reaction when you first read it to us and I'm just agree a little bit with Marshall here but that's okay because I think the intent we have been talking about is pretty clear on the record, but to strike that phrase seems to me to almost muddy up that intent to some. It would not be my preference I'm trying to try to make everybody happy or at least everybody not happy. I, my, my objection to. I don't put it this way I don't object to having the phrase simulated child. I think in one way it makes what we're doing clearer. But what I said initially was then there should be a definition of simulated child is a simulated child, a computer generated child, or as a simulated child, a living person who is role playing as a child, what, what does simulated child entail. So, if we're going to have the phrase simulated child, I think there needs to be a definition seems to me if we don't want to do that, and we want to take a more elegant approach we can just get rid of that phrase in a way that Michelle suggests. She asked us to take a look back at section one 28 21 definitions as used in this chapter, child means any person under 16 years of age. You look back and you look at seven a little I involves a child as defined in subsection one of the section. One child means any person under 16 years of age and come down to see as a simulation applies only to conduct, clearly involving a child as defined in subsection one go back child means any person under 16 years of age. Not simulated. I agree with, with Philip that you adding in the words simulated child then kind of does put money. I don't know that it would I think it is somewhat clearer by taking out that phrase and doing so that seven series simulation applies only to conduct, you could add with a child. Just looking at the plain meaning the plain language definition for simulated it means manufactured an imitation. I'm not indicating the conditions of something. Yeah, I just, I just think it's a larger. It's a larger field of reference. We already exclude up above drawings. Non visual written descriptions, but then when you talk about a simulated child. Those, those paintings drawings, non visual or written descriptions might not capture other forms of computer simulation. I, I guess my way of looking at it is with the time we have left and given what we're going to need to do on the language that we're adding. This seems to me like not a big problem. If we get rid of not to a simulated child with noting Marshall Paul's objection. I guess what I was saying originally was either we trust the definition is clear that it's an actual child. You know the definition of what a, of what a child is at the top of the bill. And if we trust that then we don't need that simulated child language later. So the reading that the chair just did from that definition forward, I think it's pretty clear. Okay. I think we any objection to doing that to doing actually. To change the change see the final see section one simulation applies only to conduct. Okay, I'm okay with that striking the words not to a simulated child. I'm okay with that. I'm going to say I live with it only because I think the record is pretty clear of what our intent is. All right, so that takes care of that. And then when we get to S 103. We will hear some testimony next week, I think we know we can finish that off this has been helpful anyway. And we're going to take a break until 1030. Was that okay. I was there anything more. Oh, who's going to report S one. H 195 the facial recognition. Don't all jump. I will do it if, if no one else is, I guess you can announce it's a simple little bill. Yeah. So I, I think center birth you just need to let secretary bloomer and Vanessa know the vote because they already have the, the bill. Okay. And I'll get you in this list. And that was 500. Yep. Did you get the, the other bill as 99. I sent it on to bloomer. But I'm assuming it went to rules and I have to get it out of. You know, I, I was thought under the old system, I thought we could send hours out after crossover and then they went to jail in the house. I didn't think they had to be voted out on both sides. Yeah, you're, you're right. I don't understand why. Because the, the point of crossover is to give the other chamber time to work on it. And if they, if it's something that they feel is important and they want to get they'll, they'll make that appeal to their rules committee but we keep working on S bills all the time, and they might deal with them in January. Yeah, I don't, I think it, I think it got confused with under COVID at the beginning, things had to be ordered out. And, and that was a new regime. So it's not clear what why it would go to rules now unless it's the COVID piece. I might ask Becca about that because I'm, I'm concerned that it means that any S bills that we're continuing to address that we would like. Maybe they want to take them up this year because they have time, or maybe they want to wait until January but we, we have every, I think right to get them out and keep working on them. So, I'm going to check with Becca on that. Okay.