Daily Archives: June 13, 2007

All the criminal justice bills you can gorge yourself on

law.gif

So, as promised, here is the post on what happened to all those criminal law related bills that were voted out of committee.

The ones that became law:

  • HB 7313 An Act Concerning Domestic Violence.
  • SB 1458 An Act Concerning Jessica’s Law.
  • SB 0170 An Act Concerning Pardons.

The ones that died, only to fight another day:

  • HB 5503 An Act Concerning Residency Restrictions for Registered Sexual Offenders
  • HB 6285 An Act Concerning The Age of a Child with Respect to Juvenile Court Jurisdiction
  • HB 7085 An Act Concerning the SOL for Prosecution of Certain Sexual Assault Offenses Using DNA Evidence.
  • HB 7234 An Act Concerning Victim Services.
  • HB 7335 An Act Concerning Persistent Offenders.
  • HB 7365 An Act Concerning the Procedure in a Capital Felony Trial.
  • HB 7391 An Act Concerning Preventive Detention.
  • HB 7406 An Act Concerning Youthful Offenders…
  • HB 7408 An Act Concerning the Risk Assessment Board…
  • SB 0708 An Act Creating a Violent Offender Registry.
  • SB 0838 An Act Requiring the DNA Testing of Certain Arrested Persons.
  • SB 1269 An Act Concerning the Quality of Legal Representation of Children and Youth in Juvenile Matters.
  • SB 1322 Student Loan Repayment Assistance Bill for Public Defenders and Prosecutors.
  • SB 1479 An Act Concerning Judicial Branch Openness.

Note that some of the proposals in these bills may have been merged with others (although I’m not aware of any). The Judicial Branch’s Law Library is keeping a running tally of all the bills that have become law. I’ll keep checking and updating this list as necessary. (HT: CT Practice Blog)

Domestic violence bill signed by Governor

I’ve promised a recap of criminal law related bills passed by the legislature, I know. I’ll do it tonight, I promise. In the meantime, here’s a story about one of the bills the Governor signed. The bill, dubbed the “domestic violence bill” creates a new crime: strangulation.

It also gives police the power to set conditions of release for those released on bond over the weekend or between the time of arrest and arraignment.

The bill, which passed the General Assembly unanimously after stalling last year, drew criticism from defense lawyers who said it was unfair for police to ban defendants from contacting victims or returning home.

Supporters recognized those concerns but said the bill was crucial to protecting victims, especially those attacked overnight or on weekends. Such victims typically must wait until the next court date for a judge to impose protective orders or other conditions on their accused attackers, experts said.

The problematic component is that we are allowing police officers discretion normally left to a bail commissioner or a judge,” said state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee. “But we thought it was important because of the potential harm to victims of domestic violence.”

Violating conditions set by an officer would be a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on the charges in the original incident.

Police officers are “not neutral” and may unfairly ban suspects from their homes without weighing “both sides of a dispute,” wrote Jon Schoenhorn, president of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. Legislators added a clause to the bill saying officers must try to contact a bail commissioner before imposing the conditions, McDonald said. Officers can set conditions only if bail commissioners are unavailable or they fail to contact one after making reasonable efforts to find one.

An interpreter must explain conditions of release to defendants who do not speak English. That may not be enough to satisfy critics, who have said judges should be responsible for any conditions of release. About three dozen states issue protective orders on evenings and weekends, but most pay judges to be available to sign them after hours. Last year’s bill failed in part because it would have cost the state about $250,000 to pay for the after-hours judges, McDonald said. The officer’s conditions would hold only until the defendant appears before a judge, who could revoke them or set his own, he said.

As for the new crime of strangulation, it seems eerily similar to one already existing: assault. Thankfully,

Juries will not be allowed to convict defendants of strangulation, assault and unlawful restraint in the same case, a rule that prevents the piling on of charges defense lawyers feared.

There was another thing that bothered me about this. So I went to a dictionary. It turns out strangling someone doesn’t necessarily require killing them. You learn something new every day.