Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Committee this Tuesday afternoon, April seventh. We have a few bills up to discuss and possibly vote on. And we're we'll start with eight s one seventy nine. It's an act relating to the uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act. And we took testimony on that last week. And I thought that we were pretty well set with that one. But why don't we get a motion on the floor on the floor on the committee? So if I take a motion to make sure I'm getting this right, that we approve s one seventy nine as passed the senate? Still moved. Still moved. Is there a second? Is there further discussion?

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Need the second. I

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: don't see any further discussion. It's a uniform commission law, and it looks like it's very much needed. This will be going to ways and means once we vote it out, but the court can call the roll. Arsenault?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Isn't she coming right back in? She might

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: be coming right back in. Goodnow? Yes. Post name, yeah. Harvey? Yes. Malay?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Oliver? Yeah. Rachelson?

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: She's gone, right? Correct, yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: She's not here.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Christie? Christie? He's not here.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Burditt? Yes. You're welcome.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes. And I understand Ian is excited to report this bill. Ian is very excited to report this bill.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Maybe it'll be a mogul. Excited as everyone would be to hear it.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We are all very excited that you're gonna do this. Are we gonna help? Well, that's for Yeah, she should be right back, as long as she's gonna be here. Alright. The next one is s one eighty one. That's an act related to eliminating the requirement for a pre sentence investigation for imposition of deferred sentence. Do we have the instance of amendment? Would have been sent to you by Michelle. It's posted. So why don't we skip that one if we can get that instance of amendment, then we can go back to that one. So S-one 183 is an act relating to home improvement and land improvement fraud. We don't have any amendments on that. That bill is to correct the fact that the language was found by two Superior Court judges to be unconstitutional. And this fixes that. So I would take a motion to approve s one eighty three as past the sentence. So do we discuss before I And we'll discuss after So moved. Second? Or second? May. Okay. Alright. Any discussion on this?

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah. So the two judges that found that unconstitutional or whatever it was, they're fine with it now, And they were asked?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No. I mean, they were not asked because they wouldn't probably weigh in on whether it's constitutional or not unless it's challenged again. But we did have testimony from the attorney general's office and the And they think that this fixes what the problem was.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: But, again, just to be clear, they weren't asked since the other people that were. And you're saying, why wouldn't they be asked?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Because they asked. Because they would say that they're not allowed to to tell us their opinion on whether it's constitutional or not. We've heard that from Judge Zonay multiple times that they won't re decide or give us what's called an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of something. Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion on S-one 183? Not seeing any your court concordance. Yes. Dolan. Goodnow? Yes. Post night. Yeah. Harvey? Yes. Malay? Yes.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Oliver? Yeah. Rachelson. Christie. Thomas.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Burditt.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Burditt. Burditt? Yes. Alone?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: You were watching.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I need to put him on because

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: It's gonna be right in front

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: of me. Can't see him.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Not the problem yet today.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So we'll just report those out, 803. We're not gonna leave for Karen. So 803 on both of us. All right, so let's jump to S203. Are we getting a printout of those? No, no, So this is one that I don't think we had complete. We weren't all quite on the same page yet, I believe, this S-twenty three, or maybe I misread that. This is for DUIs in the twenty year period and whether it should be from conviction to the offense. And there was discussion of whether it should be offense to the defendants. Conviction to conviction, all to determine as part of your period when a DUI goes away off of somebody's record. What is it now? It is conviction to a person convicted of violating Section twelve oh one of the title who has been convicted of another violation of that section within the last twenty years.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: It's to

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: the case.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's like conviction Well, so we have two courts. We one, we have Judge Treadwell And it's conviction to conviction. Oh. Right? Other way around. Right.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: Was When

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: he says conviction to conviction, we have judge No. But it's

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: not conviction to conviction. It's the other way around, conviction to conviction.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: No. I I was thinking about Was

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: it worry or was it I couldn't remember which judge.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Judge Thibault said it was absurd results unless it was conviction to the offense. Judge Treadwell reading it very strictly said it's conviction to conviction. So there's two different judges would do two different approaches. And what we're trying to do is say, well, this is the approach to clarify that difference of opinion of the judges. And this bill So that twenty year period you're talking conviction to offense or conviction to conviction. Right. And the bill says conviction to offense. It essentially takes the Roy Tito approach and says, This is the way that we think this should work.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: And in practice, I think it's generally understood that it's conviction to offense because the offense state is like when you're charging it, you're looking at the bad day and you look back to

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the conviction. That's it is

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: a provocable one too, convicted.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: And that kind of gets back to the If the litigation around the new DUI takes a long time and then it goes to trial, and in that interim you move beyond the twenty years to the conviction that looked back, then you'd be outside the twenty years and it no longer would be the predicate to

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: you live. Yeah, that's the vision.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's the It needs to

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: be what it has to be.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yeah, so I think the only logical move would either be to keep it kind of with where we're at, which would be conviction to offense or to go offense to offense. Well, but that's

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: not really where we are. Now, the language isn't clear that it's conviction to offense. And that's what Treadwell says is conviction to conviction. Was talking about the I'm talking about the bill. Yeah, the bill. Yeah. I think, yeah.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: And I don't know, I guess we're on the record. I would refer to the judges as to how they read it. I think logically, it would make sense that you would go conviction to offense, and that's why the language that we're putting in, which is not a lot of language, is just going to clarify that it's conviction to offense. Correct. Correct.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: But if you were deemed innocent after that, then that wouldn't apply anyways? Correct. Okay.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yes. And that's why the conviction initially makes sense too, because you're basically saying, been convicted of the DUI within the last twenty years, so that's why this new DUI offense is going to be a predicate offense. So it could be DUI two, DUI

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I see. Okay.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And if you go conviction to conviction, if somebody drags the case out for a year or two, they may go past the date and say, see you later. I'm pretty twenty year. Up to twenty years. Right. But if they could drag it out That's huge.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah. Where did the twenty years come from? Oh, that's existing law. Should be

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's existing law. It like did Five? We did some never expunge. That's crazy.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: It's only for one of the convictions. So if you're charging a DUI of three or subsequent, you to have one conviction within twenty years, and then the rest can go beyond that.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Within twenty years, I'm pretty sure we did that years ago in here and we came to that seems like one reason we came to that twenty years because somebody who gets a second one it's well within that twenty years and for the most part if somebody goes twenty years they never get another DUI.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It gives somebody a chance to just to

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: get it off the record. Yeah. And I was actually used myself as an example because I had this weedy guy in 'seventy six and haven't had it since. So yeah,

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: it's way over twenty years,

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I feel pretty confident. Even at the twenty year period, felt pretty confident what they're going to get another one. Somebody who just can't control themselves is going to they're going to chalk them up.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Guess that's true.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: It just seems like the the DUI and I've bought this for, I don't know, so many years. It just seems like the bad offense not saying it's not warranted, but a person that screws up once and whatever, it just seems like we really, really crushed them hard compared to some other things that go on out there. Just my opinion. And and I'm I'm mixed about this one, but,

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I mean, we're we're we're knowing

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: doesn't deal with changing any penalties.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah. I know. Well, I kinda know, but it's like it's like it's like we're big on giving people second chances a heck of a lot quicker in other areas in my mind.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes, sir. Yeah. Just I think

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: the only response I would have to that would just be that DUIs are a vast majority of criminal cases in Vermont. There's way more than most probably driving license suspended DLS charges are. Also, there are a lot of those. But there's a ton of DUIs, DUI charges. There's a lot of discretion as to how those charges are ultimately determined. And the seriousness of a DUI, just like the runs that gambit, from something that's pretty minor to someone dies. And I think that having a predicate structure like this, where if you were convicted of a DUI, it wasn't played down to a negligent operation or something like that, which can happen with a DUI one, that you've got to commit to the DUI once, and then within twenty years, you're now getting another one. That's really serious, concerning behavior, and you're on the roads with other people. I think that's an important part of how we structure it in Vermont.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So just to come back on that, maybe we ought to make it so it's not so so widely spread from the get go with a with a with a DUI on that. And then the other offense driving license suspended, most of those are probably because they got their license suspended with a DUI. Correct? A lot

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: of them.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah. So, I mean, that would go hand in hand. So That's

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: a good point.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah. Because most dare say it. I don't know what the statistics are now, but at one point, most of the people that were getting a DUI were the ones that were having a beer or two on the way home from their jobs and needed to be back at that job the next day. You know what I mean?

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: There are so many that I feel like, you know, you could there I'm sure there are a

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: lot of those, but then there are also And now we got a lot of other stuff that's out there that's available. So

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And usually, it's not somebody who has beer too. If I remember right again back when we did it, the person who gets picked up for DUI on average, it's like their eighty seventh time or something like that. They just didn't get caught. It's an incredible number. DLSs are right. They're my conviction date.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So my Based on this, Tom, where am I with this? No.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I mean, the DLSs are from conviction to conviction.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So why don't we put this one aside for now? Have some further thought or discussion, more testimony if we need more testimony. It sounds like it's a little up in the air. So we'll get to it, but I think we need perhaps a little bit more testimony if you want. Because you want to get extra information. And more thought.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I think the main thing is what it means is it's going to take some more cost, know, just to land on one way or the other. Right, right, right. It's just the big thing.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Maybe we'll have a treadmill because we got one Tebow win, and we'll have

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: them each Little battle. That sounds fun.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Their viewpoint of Where was Rory on this again?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'm gonna go with Camp Tebow.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's a lot of Camp Camp Tivo would be what's in this build. It's it's conviction to a sense.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: But it's not camps as in what they want. It's just how they interpret it. Eats the statute, and

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: then they will interpret it the way that we want them to. You could clarify that.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: You mean we're not gonna have a duel

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: or anything in here? I don't

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: think so. We need to clarify it one way or the other. And this clarifies it to say conviction to offense. And if we all decide that's not, which makes sense. So a question I have after Tom said that DLS is conviction to conviction, what about other driving offenses? Are they mostly conviction to conviction, or are

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: they all over the place? So

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: is it a DLS for when it the DLS one falls off your record? Is that what happens, Tom? Is that what you're talking about?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Well, in Sprint, you get your conviction on

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: your record.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And so when they pull up your record, then they can tell when you've been convicted. So it'd be if if you had one,

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: it's after Three times.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: It's the Second deal that is criminal. Right? After the second one is criminal, and it's by conviction date.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: But that would be the same for the DUIs as we're currently so we're also saying that it would be

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: It's not a fenced

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: What's that?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: It's not a fenced state on the DUIs. It's conviction. That's the way it's displayed on your

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: Oh, woah.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: On your record on your motor vehicle record. It's displayed by conviction date.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright, so I think maybe we need to have Eric Fitzpatrick come in and at least leave the floor for their discussion. And so, alright, that needs a little more thought, maybe some discussion with Eric and maybe a little other witnesses can help clarify that. So we'll go back to S-one hundred eighty one. So you all should have received now on your desk the we have an instance of an amendment. And this is the amendment that Judge Zoning had asked for and was cleared with all the various witnesses that we had. This is a bill S 181 which It's an act relating to eliminating the requirements for a pre sentence investigation for imposition of a deferred sentence. We heard from witnesses this past week. Who did we hear from? That is one thing that would be another. This is the one that we heard from Kenneth Ganis, Matt Valerio, Judge Donae, Gary Marvell, Michelle Childs. So why don't we take care of the amendment first and then we can have it respond as amended and then we can have further discussion. So I would take let me make sure I'm getting my stuff right here. I take a motion that we approve the amendment draft 1.1 to s one eighty one. This is a committee amendment adding language to the bill. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. All right. All those in favor of the amendment? Raise your hand. Discussion. Yeah, we're gonna do that on the next Okay. Yeah, this is just to get the amendment there. So I will take a motion to approve S 181 as amended. Is that right? I'm second. Second. And then discussion. Any discussion? No. Yeah. Listed crimes, pre sentence investigations that are automatic or automatic is the right word? So the language in the bill itself is that listed crimes, it's automatic unless it's waived by the respondents. And this is just that this amendment was to make clear that the judge can still And who would waive it?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: The judge or the attorneys or prosecutor? Any of

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the three. Any of the three. Yeah. So the parties can waive it, but the judge can disagree and say, I'm not going to waive it. I think

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: the parties have to agree.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, the parties have to agree, but the judge disagree with the parties and still require it.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yeah, but the defense and the prosecution both have to agree to have it later.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes, yes, the state's attorney and the respondent to the defense counsel. Correct, I'm sorry, thank you for clarifying. They have to agree, but then the judge also has to agree with that.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Do you need other discussion of this? We took

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: took a lot of

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: some more errors maybe. Right?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: An hour. All at once.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. There wasn't any opposition to this except think Harry Harry Marble thinks that they should be more pre sentence reports, but defense counsel, the judge, and state's attorney disagreed. They were all on board with those three.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Was it Jay or Sue? No.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Jay was on the email that Judge Zone sent out the proposed amendment. It included Jay, Defender General, State's Attorney. They were all in the amendment.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Any time Zone and Valero?

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: Matt. Matt.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I agree. I get nervous.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And the state's attorney.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah. That's yeah. I put not much problem with this, and I thought that the amendment, I think was already said was people are in favor of that, which knows a lot more about it than I do.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah. If I remember, the amendment was just to because it doesn't explicitly say in the bill as past the senate, it doesn't explicitly say what the amendment says, which is, of course, the court can order, at its discretion, can order an investigation even if it's not a listed crime. And that's existing practice. Right. It's existing practice, but states attorney Dessas felt it would be helpful to put that language in. Judge Donne said the court always has that right, so it's not necessary, but it also doesn't. It's just

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: sort of propping up. Yeah, the judge said go ahead and he suggested the language, just to make it very clear. Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So bottom line to the whole thing is it makes the existing law a little bit better, but not perfect to where I would really like it.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Let's go to the bottom line. It gives some more discretion to not have a pre sentence in court.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: As a lawyer, or an acting or whatever you're

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So our Oh, it was I'm

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: just recalling Matt's testimony, Defender General Valeria's testimony about the importance of having being able to make an agreement, make an agreement in the moment, even if the pre sentence investigation hasn't been done. That he was like, sometimes you miss that moment. That's sort of what swayed me, that you might miss that resolution, and therefore, because this just can slow everything down.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: And I think we heard testimony significantly slows it down. It's taking three to six months to get pre sentence investigations done.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And when someone is incarcerated, that means that they're sitting if the resolution would result in their being released, that they are waiting, held, pre convictions. But isn't the PSI to determine how likely they would be to reoffend and etcetera if they were released?

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: I don't want to testify, but I think if No.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Well, I won't.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: You heard a testimony that I'm just curious, I wasn't here for testimony. So you just want I mean, that's what the PSI does.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: It does that. It looks a little background and history and stuff. And that's why PSIs are mandatory for listed offenses and can always be required can always be asked for by the judge and only are waivable if they are waived by both the defense and prosecution. Okay.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So that's what this amendment does?

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: The amendment clarifies that the court can always order one.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: No the crime. No matter the Of the charge.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So are we good or do we need more time?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'm good. I'm good.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Goodnow.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Every time. Every time.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, again, parties that are in favor of this, and it does give flexibility to not have one. They can also, whenever it's needed, they can have one. Clerk and phone role will take our chances.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: Let's

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: move this one along.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Obviously, haven't made my mind out. Arsenault?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Can I go last? Dolan?

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yes. No? Yes. Just

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: call your name last. Can I do that?

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: Oh, sure you can. Yeah, you will. No. Sure you can.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Goslant, yes. Harvey, no. Malay?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Say what?

[Alicia Malay (Member)]: I'm not. Hold on. Still thinking. Still thinking. I'm gonna say no.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Oliver? Yes. Rachelson, Christie, Burditt? Yes. Walnut? Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So Tom, did you say, Oliver, you say you wanted to report this? Anyone wanted well, because we can't have the well, you should report it now. Nicely done. Nicely done. I

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: came and explained why. Think it's not the best idea.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: You can have somebody that's gonna do it that's gonna be ready to get. Hopefully. Yeah. Terry. No. You know how I do it. I sit in I'm running from what

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you call that wall. Handball. There will

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: be hand care in case that I'll do. Okay, sure. Okay.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: All right.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right, so we have I'm gonna see if I can get Lauren Hibbert here a little bit early since we got invoice real quickly. I've anticipated

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: We're now going back to 181, right?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: What's that? We're not going back to 181. No, that was 181.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: For 203? You need 203. Would it be helpful for 203, Karen, to see what people need in order to make their decision?

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: I think

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we need to get Eric in to discuss DLS versus DUI and maybe potentially have DSAS for explanation. But is

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: it worth just asking if anybody needs anything else other

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: than We don't need anything else?

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: We're on 181, right?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, we did 181. That's what we just did. PO three. You got it right. So it's two zero three that we're holding off.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Sorry. I just thought that

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: out there so that when we go for the boat next time that we drop the bomb in ice and cross sell the peas.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Absolutely. Does anybody need anything else on 02/2003?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: What were the three bells we just passed out?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: 179, 18183.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: The only thing did we get the two decisions? From Trump?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. We asked for those, and Did I don't know we get those from Wiggins? Yeah. Let me make sure I get that.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah, those would

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: be It literally contradicts itself,

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: the statute. We're trying to clarify to

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: you. Guess

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: it would help me to just understand. So basically, where people are at is either they want to go conviction to conviction, or they want to go conviction to offense, or they want to go I guess no one wants to go offense to offense.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: For subsequent offenses, it says you have to have been previously convicted. But that would be Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. I will try to make sure that when you get that. So

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I'll just Maybe Eric will be able to do this, but I also am fine going either way. I just feel like it adds clarity to it and it meets the goal. I don't think it has to be perfect. But if there's capacity to learn are there other examples of when it goes one or the other? The offense, it could be because and then I'm like, fine. We're just we're just doing that. Like, I think for me, what is needed is the clarity. I'm not so stuck on

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. There

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: are lots and lots and lots of different predicate offenses, and all of those require some kind of prior conviction or offense. Then to become the predicate version of it, they have to be it has to go from either the offense date or the conviction date. Do we just do all the other ones from do we do conviction to offense date?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Any of them from the offense date, the previous?

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: I don't I would imagine not, but I don't know.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: That's what I'm saying. If there isn't, then maybe we but I also don't know if that's gonna take a lot of time for alleged counsel, and I don't think this is necessarily worth the time. I would be fine just this is what it is.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: See if you can expedite that.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. So if I I think one way

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: or the other, I'll I one way or the I'll go right now.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Make it

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: into a fence then. Send it out. Yes. So

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we're recess or whatever you want call it until ten to two. We'll go off live.