Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Date:02/14/2006
ATTENDANCE
Time:09:40 AM to 12:28 PM
Bacon
X
Dyer
X
Place:SCR 352
Gordon
X
Mitchell
A
This Meeting was called to order by
Traylor
X
Senator Grossman
Shaffer
X
Grossman
X
This Report was prepared by
Jessika Shipley
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
SB06-102
SB06-157
SB06-150		Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole
Postponed Indefinitely
Witness Testimony Only


09:40 AM -- Senate Bill 06-102

Senator Williams, prime sponsor, presented Senate Bill 06-102 concerning limited criminal immunity for licensed medical caregivers who, with consent, provide palliative care to terminally ill patients. The bill provides a licensed medical caregiver providing palliative care to a terminally ill patient, with the patient's consent, an exception to the offense of manslaughter. It also states that the exception does not permit a medical caregiver to assist a patient in committing suicide. The committee discussed the definition of a surrogate decision maker.

09:44 AM -- Julie Reiskin, Colorado Cross Disability Coalition, spoke in opposition to the bill. Ms. Reiskin stated her major concerns about the bill. She is not aware of any physicians in Colorado who have been prosecuted for manslaughter for prescribing large quantities of pain medication. She believes that the exemption in the bill against physician-assisted suicide is not comprehensive enough. Further, she stated that the bill could protect physicians who act recklessly. She stressed that adequate pain management is crucial and should be mandatory.

09:53 AM -- Mary Kay Hogan, Colorado Hospice Association, spoke in support of the bill. Ms. Hogan discussed the definition of manslaughter and the inclusion of recklessness in that definition. She spoke about the difference between criminal negligence and criminal recklessness.












09:56 AM -- Dan Johnson, Quality of Care Institute, spoke in support of the bill. Dr. Johnson discussed palliative care and offered an overview of how palliative care is generally provided to terminally ill patients. He spoke about pain management and control. His palliative care team works with terminally ill patients to assist them in understanding their prognosis and what options are available to deal with that. Dr. Johnson provided a diagram to the committee that explains some components of palliative care (Attachment A). Dr. Johnson also explained the difference between hospice care and palliative care. He then responded to committee questions regarding a level of pain medication that risks being lethal. He stressed the need to follow established dosage guidelines and also the need to be aware of a gray area that arises at the end of an individual's life

10:09 AM -- David Link, medical oncologist, spoke in support of the bill. Dr. Link spoke about the need for better pain management for terminally ill patients. He discussed the perception of death that results from high quantities of pain medication and how that is a barrier to physicians doing their job effectively.

10:12 AM -- Cort Kassner, Hospice of Metro Denver, spoke in support of the bill. Dr. Kassner explained hospice care, which is palliative in nature. He responded to questions from the committee regarding the number of manslaughter charges that have been filed against physicians who provide palliative care. Dr. Kassner provided a document to the committee that is given to terminally ill patients who wish to make a plan for the end of their life (Attachment B).

10:17 AM -- R.J. Ours, American Cancer Society, spoke in support of the bill. Mr. Ours discussed the inadequate relief of pain for advanced cancer patients and how that has adverse effects on the quality of life for cancer patients. Mr. Ours responded to questions from the committee about whether the bill would .

10:22 AM -- John Stoeffel, Alliance for Retired Americans, spoke in support of the bill. Mr. Stoeffel asked the committee if they would want a physician to hesitate to give adequate pain medication due to fear of legal repercussions.


10:23 AM

Senator Williams, wrapped up her presentation of the bill. She stressed the need for increased levels of quality of life in the final days of a terminally ill individual.
BILL:SB06-102
TIME: 10:25:48 AM
MOVED:Shaffer
MOTION:Moved prepared amendment L.001 (Attachment C). The motion passed without objection
SECONDED:
VOTE
Bacon
Dyer
Gordon
Mitchell
Traylor
Shaffer
Grossman
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection
BILL:SB06-102
TIME: 10:26:16 AM
MOVED:Shaffer
MOTION:Refer Senate Bill 06-102 to the Committee of the Whole, as amended, with a favorable recommendation. The motion passed on a unanimous roll call vote
SECONDED:
VOTE
Bacon
Yes
Dyer
Yes
Gordon
Yes
Mitchell
Yes
Traylor
Yes
Shaffer
Yes
Grossman
Yes
Final YES: 7 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS
BILL:SB06-102
TIME: 10:30:10 AM
MOVED:Gordon
MOTION:Moved the bill to the consent calendar. There was objection to the motion.
SECONDED:
VOTE
Bacon
Dyer
Gordon
Mitchell
Traylor
Shaffer
Grossman
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: TIE


10:33 AM -- Senate Bill 06-157

Senator Kester, prime sponsor, presented his bill. The bill concerns allowing valid Colorado concealed handgun permits to satisfy firearms transfer background check requirements and would amend the application procedure for concealed handgun permits to satisfy federal background check requirements. It would allow a person to satisfy the statutory background check requirements for transfers of firearms by presenting a valid Colorado concealed handgun permit to a gun show vendor.

10:37 AM -- John Patterson, Police Chiefs' Association of Colorado, spoke in opposition to the bill. Chief Patterson spoke about the difficulty of effectively revoking a concealed weapons permit. Roughly half of the sheriffs' departments in Colorado report concealed weapons permits to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI). There is no current database accessible by law enforcement officials to check the status of a concealed weapons permit and there is no mechanism for a gun show vendor to ascertain whether a permit is valid. I f a permit is revoked for a criminal infraction and the permit holder does not voluntarily return the permit to the sheriff's office, there is no procedure in place for retrieving it.





10:40 AM -- Diana Madarieta, Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, spoke in opposition to the bill. Ms. Madarieta stated that this bill is an attempt by the gun lobby to take advantage of two loopholes in the federal law requiring background checks prior to the sale of firearms. She provided a packet of information to the committee discussing the opposition of Colorado Ceasefire to the bill (Attachment D). Ms. Madarieta responded to questions from the committee regarding the incidences of prohibited buyers obtaining guns.

10:48 AM -- John Head, private citizen, spoke in opposition to the bill. Mr. Head discussed Amendment 22, which was passed by Colorado voters in 2000, and closed the gun show loophole.

10:53 AM -- Marilee Posavec, Greater Denver Million Mom Chapter, spoke in opposition to the bill. Ms. Posavec spoke about her concerns with the shortcomings of the bill, which provides no provision for gun permit holders who move to a different jurisdiction.

10:55 AM -- Tom Mauser, spoke in opposition to the bill. Mr. Mauser stated that the bill allows individuals to bypass the background check requirement prior to the sale of a firearm. A concealed weapons permit is valid for five years and, in that time, information on the permit application becomes inaccurate. Mr. Mauser also pointed out that there is no process in place to revoke concealed weapons permits in cases where permit holders get into trouble. They simply cannot get a new permit when their current one expires. Mr. Mauser responded to questions from the committee regarding the likelihood of a permit carrier committing a crime after the background check is carried out. He finished by stressing that the voters want everyone who buys a gun in Colorado to go through a background check.

11:05 AM -- Mitch Morrissey, Denver District Attorney, spoke in opposition to the bill. Mr. Morrissey stressed the fact that a lot can happen in the five year period after which an individual acquires a concealed weapons permit. He reiterated testimony of prior witnesses regarding the issue of permit holders who commit crimes after their background checks.

11:07 AM -- Twanna LaTrice Hill, Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, spoke in opposition to the bill. Ms. LaTrice Hill stressed the testimony of prior witnesses regarding behavior that occurs after the date of a background checks.

11:12 AM -- Phil Barber, private citizen, spoke in opposition to the bill. Mr. Barber discussed loopholes in Colorado's gun laws.

11:14 AM -- Peg Ackerman, County Sheriffs of Colorado, took no position on the bill. Ms. Ackerman provided data regarding revoked permits (Attachment E). Ms. Ackerman discussed the processes various sheriffs have for revoking permits in the case of protection orders or other criminal warrants. The committee asked Ms. Ackerman questions regarding the failure of the County Sheriffs to take a position on the bill.

11:20 AM -- Anthony Fabian, Colorado State Shooting Association, spoke in support of the bill. Mr. Fabian explained the constituency of the Colorado Shooting Association. He stated that the bill is a simple benefit to Colorado gun owners and taxpayers. Mr. Fabian noted that none of the prior witnesses provided evidence that allowing concealed weapon permit holders to purchase firearms without a current background check. He also pointed out that none of the states that have a law like the one proposed in the bill have reported increased rates of gun violence. Mr. Fabian stressed that background checks for holders of concealed weapons permits are redundant and cost the taxpayers money. Mr. Fabian answered questions from the committee regarding the length of time it takes to do a background check at a gun show. The committee discussed the availability of handguns to individuals who are determined to acquire one, regardless of the law.





11:35 AM -- Steven Schreiner, Firearms Coalition of Colorado, spoke in support of the bill. Mr. Schreiner explained that the bill would ease the backlog at the CBI in regards to background checks, especially on weekends.

11:38 AM -- Marilyn Shuey, League of Women Voters, spoke in opposition to the bill. Ms. Shuey pointed out that voters in 2000 supported closing loopholes in Colorado gun laws and no evidence exists to show that the support has changed on the issue.


11:38 AM

Senator Kester made final comments about the bill.
BILL:SB06-157
TIME: 11:39:30 AM
MOVED:Gordon
MOTION:Moved to postpone SB 06-157 indefinitely. The motion passed on a vote of 5-2.
SECONDED:
VOTE
Bacon
Yes
Dyer
No
Gordon
Yes
Mitchell
Yes
Traylor
No
Shaffer
Yes
Grossman
Yes
Final YES: 5 NO: 2 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


11:49 AM -- Senate Bill 06-150

Senator Grossman, prime sponsor, presented SB 06-150. The bill concerns DNA testing of all felons and expands DNA testing requirements to all adults convicted of a felony who are in custody or who are on parole or probation. The bill also extends DNA testing requirements to all juveniles who are adjudicated for an offense that would constitute a felony if committed by an adult, and as a result, are committed to the department of human services or placed in probation. It requires the CBI to store the biological substance to be tested until sufficient appropriations are made for chemical testing.

11:52 AM -- Dave Thomas and Mitch Morrissey, Colorado District Attorneys' Council, spoke in support of the bill. Mr. Thomas stated that the County Sheriffs of Colorado also support the bill. He explained that DNA testing of evidence is an extremely accurate way of determining whether a suspect did or did not commit a crime. Mr. Thomas provided a fact sheet to the committee regarding DNA evidence (Attachment F). Mr. Morrissey discussed the prosecution of crimes using DNA evidence and the importance of DNA testing as a forensic tool. Mr. Morrissey also explained some of the information can be found in the DNA database maintained by the state of Colorado. He discussed the fact that individuals who are convicted of burglary often are not committed to the Department of Corrections. In those cases, DNA testing is not done. He explained a link between burglary and sex assault.







12:03 PM -- Catherine Hazouri, ACLU Colorado, spoke in opposition to the bill. Ms. Hazouri spoke of DNA evidence as an invasion of the privacy of everyone in a suspect's bloodlines. The ACLU is also concerned about the future uses of DNA evidence. The committee discussed the ACLU's opposition to DNA evidence databases and their potential future uses.

12:10 PM -- Gregory Labarge, Denver Police Department Forensics Lab, spoke in support of the bill. Mr. Labarge provided anecdotal evidence of cases where felons who were not tested at the time of their arrest were later matched to unsolved crimes. Mr. Labarge stated that the Denver Police Department supports this bill due to their success with using DNA evidence. The committee discussed the use of DNA evidence to exonerate suspects.

12:20 PM -- Peter Mang, CBI, spoke in support of the bill. Mr. Mang spoke about the DNA database in Colorado and how it is an invaluable tool in solving criminal cases. He reiterated the fact that DNA evidence can be used both to convict individuals and to exonerate those who are innocent.


12:23 PM

Senator Grossman asked that the bill be laid over until Wednesday. He then adjourned the committee.