We spoke against SB 50 Aggravated Assault Modifications several times, which removes language that requires an act of impeding someone’s breathing or circulation to the point of “likely produce a loss of consciousness" in order to be charged as aggravated assault. Although we don’t love the bill, we were able to include language that requires that the act be “intentionally or knowingly”. This version of the bill passed. An identical bill was run that failed, HB 150 Aggravated Assault Amendments.

HB 350 Criminal Intent Amendments is a response to the Counterman v. Colorado case. The statute adds the mens rea of recklessness to verbal threat-based statutes that currently don’t have a mens rea or only have a reasonable person mens rea. It adds recklessness to criminal stalking, threatened or attempted assault on an elected official, and tampering with or retaliating against a juror to add recklessness.

HB 418 Student Offender Reintegration Amendments passed. This bill is very problematic for young people and school success. It creates a new definition of “sexual crime” and “sexual misconduct” to include any conduct described in: Title 76, Chapter 5, Part 4, Sexual Offenses; Title 76, Chapter 5b, Sexual Exploitation Act; Section 76-7-102, incest; Section 76-9-702, lewdness; and Section 76-9-702.1, sexual battery. It requires an LEA to adopt a policy regarding a student who commits a violent or sexual crime. If a student has committed a violent felony or sexual crime, it provides a process for a school resource officer to provide input for the LEA to consider regarding the safety risks a student may pose upon reintegration. Establish a process to inform a school resource officer of any student who is on probation. Creates procedures for determining an alternative placement for a student if the student attends the same school as the victim of the student's crime and an individual who has a protective order against the student. This bill also adds the actual use of violence or sexual misconduct to the list where a LEA shall suspend or expel a student and clarifies reintegration plan requirements. This bill DID NOT connect to the statute on what would trigger a reintegration plan. So with HB 362, it expands to include serious offenses which would be violent felony (76-3-203.5), theft of a firearm offense (76-6-4), or a weapons offense (76-10-5). The bill did add to the list of what is required in a reintegration plan: if the violent felony was directed at a school employee or another student within the school, notification of the reintegration plan to that school employee or student and the student's parent. A school district may not reintegrate a student into a school where: a student or staff member has a protective order against the student being reintegrated; or a student or staff member is the victim of a sexual crime committed by the student being reintegrated unless the victim consents. We also worked with the sponsor of SB 246 Juvenile Justice Modifications, which requires an LEA to transfer a youth's reintegration plan to their new school for one year following the notification from the court's to the school.

SB 76 Evidence Retention Amendments represents the sponsor’s continuous efforts in evidence retention. Last session, the bill dealt with evidence retention for misdemeanor offenses. This year, the bill addressed the required time period that law enforcement must retain evidence for a felony offense and biological evidence for a violent felony offense.