Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We are live. Good morning.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It's February 13, and the senate judiciary were taking back up s o 93. We have Dominica from the AG's office here. Just to give a general overview on their thoughts and then we'll go to pledge counsel. Floor is yours.

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Thank you, Senator. Greatly appreciate that. My name is Dominica Padula. I've been a prosecutor for about twenty years specializing in complex felonies, homicide, sexual assault, child exploitation cases. I am the chief of the criminal division for the Vermont attorney general's office. Again, thank you for inviting me here to be part of this conversation. I think in general, as we have all said, you've heard testimony, this is a very nuanced part of the law. It's very unique in a lot of what's happening. Vermont is on the forefront of so many things in criminal law. We're really fortunate to have that. This is the one standout in my opinion that we are lacking. Understands that and everybody's recognized that. And I thank you for starting the conversation about what needs to be done to make sure that we are able to address the number of concerns that happen when you have mental health intersecting with criminal behavior. This does not address all of the issues, but it is a great starting point. And I think that's basically what we are here to do is to begin how do we tackle this problem and how do we do it in a way that is incremental. And I think this does this with just the establishment of a forensic facility. Maybe kind of what this bill tries to do is when you establish that forensic facility, which we know is needed, because competency or an MGRI, these are things that are legal constructs. They're not medical terms. And I think that that's the real disconnect or the bridge that we have to build when talking about this part of the law that you can be you could be dealing with a mental illness and you can still be responsible for a crime. And that's the NGO. These are those constructs where you can still have something that's happening, but legally you're responsible. Competency, very similar. You can have an issue that you're dealing with, but you can also meet the standards of competency in order to do that. I think what we're seeing now in Vermont is that there is no mechanism or someone is deemed incompetent by the court, and that is a legal construct. There's no rehabilitation, there's no restoration, there's nothing where it says, you like any other citizen, you should be able to engage in this process, you should be able to defend yourself, you should be able to benefit from that. We unlike 49 other states do not have a way to assist somebody to gain that access to due process the way that everyone else does. And that's

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: problematic. I think it's very frustrating for defendants, it's frustrating for families, and

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: it's frustrating for all of the the players in court. And this begins to tackle some some of that. You know, you have competency is something that is fluid and heard other people talk about what that is. There are many people who will have a competency claim, it'll be restored and they'll never, a defense for them will never be an NGRI or an insanity claim. The vast majority of that is not going to happen. You know, where we're seeing the most acute problems, and I think just because of the amount of impact it has is what the bill is trying to address, which are those bigger crimes, right? We're talking homicides, we're talking rapes, we're talking kidnapping, the life offenses. If somebody has that, there's very limited choices in what we have available. The interesting thing about the forensic facility is that it tries to do two things, right? You have a competency which happens at the beginning of a case that goes all through cases of course, but at the beginning, can you even engage with this process? A And court that's evaluated, there will be a medical opinion, and the court is the one that will find. So you can have a medical opinion that says no, and the court may disagree with that based on the legal concepts. And that is a decision from the court. Where we have run into problems, where there needs to be, since there's no place to put somebody like that, there's no restoration here, there's nothing in that space. The only other thing left is the hospitalizations. And that as you heard DMH talk about requires a medical finding of need. When you talk about even going to Berlin, it's specific medical need, because it's paid for by Medicaid. And it has to have a treatment component that way, that doesn't always align with what the court needs are. And this is where it's trying to focus on this gap. So a forensic facility will do two things, right? First, it deals with competency issues, and restoration, which is fine. All it is trying to do is give the person the ability to be able to engage in the process at a constitutional level? Can you consult with your attorney? Can you help aid in your defense? And there are programs and ways to teach people how to do this to give them the tools to do it. Does it also have a component of treatment that might address a mental health need or other kind of need? Of course it does. And they work together. So in this proposed facility, that's what will be happening is that kind of restoration. When you hit that restoration, then you no longer need that service anymore because you become competent. Therefore, you can engage in the process. And so then that process then moves forward. That would be one function of this facility. The second function would be what happens after

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: an

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: NGRI, right? What happens when there has been a verdict in that space. And just to kind of, you know, all of this is so layered and nuanced. NGRIs are also very specific and it was very glad to see some of the changes when we talk about acquittal and when Judge Zonaghyman talked about an acquittal. Acquittals basically, in general terms means that the prosecution has not met its burden for whatever purpose. It hasn't, there could be self defense claims, other things where a jury is going to say, you know, you did not meet your burden. And the person walks right out of court, they've been acquitted, it's done. NGRs are very different. They are a specific subset of an acquittal, which means the people have proven our burden beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever crime has been, that they've been accused of committing has been proven. And I'll just use homicide as the example, but you can do an injurious incrag. Once that's happened, the burden then shifts to the defendant and in almost no other place in the law, criminal law, the burden shifts, it's very much on prosecution. So it is already, we're in a very unique place where all of a sudden it shifts to the defense. And if they've met their burden, then the jury comes back with an NGRI. And so that is a very different turn of events than what a traditional acquittal would look like. And in most states, there is something that happens afterward, right? It is not a jail sentence because somebody has been deemed not responsible for this, but still there is an accountability and a treatment and that kind of avenue and traffic happens. In Vermont, it's very limited about what can happen at the end of that. And this is the other piece that a forensic facility will take up in that way is that this would be a place where someone could be treated, rehabilitated. Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I'm I'm just curious what's happening with this group of people now.

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Different things. So if right now, if there was an NGRI, then they then go into the court can do an order of hospitalization, non hospitalization, so that court takes over. There's this ninety day period where it's decided what happens. After that it's pretty much removed from anything else so the criminal piece of this is gone and it becomes what is the appropriate level of care at that time, right? As you know, when you talk about an NGRI, an NGRI is a fixed moment in time. So whatever was going on in that moment that that crime occurred is what that is. Most likely if you've gone to trial, we are years from that point in time. We are years into most likely they're being held, know, from a court order, if that's happening in jail, if they're still not competent, that's a different kind of track. But in general, that's what's happening. And so they've been treated, they've been baselines, they've been, you know, and you are very far from what happened then. But that murder or whatever is still is there, that whatever happened in those set of circumstances that led to that still might be possible. And that is what on the end of this is allowing in this treatment facility to say, what is the balance of that? Like what is the balance of the community making sure that it's safe, that this isn't something that's gonna replicate itself? And then how can we make sure that you're getting what you need to make sure that you get to live the life that you should live as well? That's clear headed and something that can be trusted. And so that's the balance of what this is that we just don't have right now available to us in that space. And that's where you see a lot of people being very upset about looking like you just get to walk away or it doesn't matter or nothing's being addressed is because it isn't. None of those needs are being addressed for anybody. And this legislation takes a step towards making sure that that is addressed in some way. And that's why it's very important to know that once this happens, once says this that you've committed this crime, you committed this homicide, there is a reason for what you did that was beyond your control. But it doesn't mean that it's not something that we need to address or take accountability for. And that's what it's trying to do here. It's not designed to be forever. It's not designed to be punishment in that way. And that's why it's very important to have check ins once that happens, like how are you being treated? What's happening with this? Have you met the criteria to say, you can join society in a way that is beneficial to you and safe for everybody else. What does that look like? Things that are very tailored to that individual person. And that's the other thing too here when we're talking that's so general, and each case is so specific, and each case is so detailed about what happened in this instance. What was the reason? What is this person's particular needs that need to be met? And we're also talking about a very small subset. And I've heard other people testify, but it's also worth saying again, just because you are dealing with mental health issues, just because you're dealing with any kind of mental disability or defect doesn't make you any more susceptible to criminal behavior. It doesn't make you any more dangerous. I think the real tragedy here is when it does intersect with that, what you have available to you is so much less than everybody else And that's the disparity here. You know, if you aren't competent, there should be a mechanism for you to gain confidence and you should engage in your own defense. You know, as judge Zonay pointed out, and it's very true that that's why the acquittal is where it is. If you are charged with a homicide and you're raising insanity as a defense, we go to trial and I don't prove that you commit that crime, you get acquitted. And it doesn't matter about the NGRI, they never the jury never gets to it because I haven't proven my burden. And you get to walk out of court like anybody else. The only difference is is that the NGRI, which is why it's so different than than an acquittal, is that they're saying, yes, I might have done this, but this is the reason why I should be some excuse, but it's a reason and it's a reason that they couldn't control. And that's what it's saying. And then what happens after that shouldn't be, and it doesn't feel good for anybody, that somebody just gets to walk out of court at that point. And that's where those NGRIs come in. That's where all the other states have There's some mechanisms about how do we balance the needs of this person who couldn't control their actions at the time. But now that can't be what happens in perpetuity as you can never control your actions when you're with everybody else. So let's just stop it, right? Let's just stop it, there's nothing. And there's no safeguards for the person, there's no safeguards for the community. And I think that's what this is trying to address. How do we balance all of those things with very finite resources? And you know, how do we just kind of address all those things. So that's why in this bill, it's trying to do both of those things. The other piece in just looking through and I know that everyone has the same draft, and there's just two pieces that I'd just like to point out as food for thought and just something to consider as concepts. The first one is what it contemplates now is if somebody raises competency, they go into this competency restoration and conceivably there, I told you there's education, there's treatment, there's all these things that are designed specifically for this person to make them competent so that they can engage in the process.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I mean, is that in the new draft or the

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I think it's

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: in both. And

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: it says that you would be held in the facility until verdict of competency.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Is that after a finding of

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: That's after a finding

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: So first you're incompetent, you then go to this facility. And it looks like it says, every I can't remember the number that it was, but after a certain number of time, you would then go back to court to see if you're confident. The second part of that though says that you would be held there until birth. And I would just like everyone to consider maybe since

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's not a

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: punishment, and it's a finite resources, once you have gained competency, you should not be in that facility any longer. And whatever the court deems as the appropriate level of bail or whatever kind of, you know, status it is within the the court, that should then remain.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: If I might, mister chair? Yes. So we we had a suggested edit to make the Chalamet. So the company restoration services may be maintained until the person receives the verdict. Is that still objectionable?

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: I think it would be cleaner. No.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: You can answer your first question first.

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Think it would be cleaner because and it's rightfully so and I think, you know, we need to be very careful that this is something that is not a punishment. When you're in competency restoration, it is a benefit to the defendant to be restored to competency so they can defend themselves. Because they might not have done this, and they need to be able to communicate that. And they need to be able to effectively do that. And if we don't give people the tools to do that, they never get to that space. And I don't want them to be in some place where they can't, you know, effectively do that. And if they do, and that's what we want them to do, and they've gained this level of competency deemed by the court that they are competent, which might be different from the medical, that they no longer need to be in this facility because they are out of it. The purpose for them being there has not been addressed and they should be able to remove them. My

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: question is a little bit of a follow-up and I'm just so as I read this, if someone is deemed to be incompetent sent to this facility, they can't receive a verdict because they're incompetent. And so this almost creates like an in perpetuity loop unless we change this language to really be that they are held there until they are competent because then they are able to engage in their defense.

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Correct and at that point so say that you know, if there's a hold without order from the court, because everyone's deemed competent from the beginning. So at once when you're arraigned and bail hits and all of these kinds of things, all these decisions are made saying that this person is common because you're presumed common. Usually when you're dealing with a homicide, they're talking about someone most likely will be held at high bail or they will be held without. That means you're in a facility, you're DOC. DOC does have medical components. There's a specific, I think it's Southern State that has kind of specialized mental health, those kinds of resources. And if there is a competency claim immediately at that, then my understanding is DOC can put somewhere where they think they can deal with this the best. While that's happening, you know, there's this competency review and say that we have a competency hearing, it's deemed the court opines that this person is not competent, then theoretically they would go to this facility. This facility's only purpose at that time for this defendant would be to restore competency. And however they think that's the right thing to do with this defendant, whether it's a combination of medication, education, all of the things therapeutically that they would need to do plus this education component.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Can interrupt you? One thing that struck me yesterday raised by the defender general was regarding the fact that this type of detention can't be akin to incarceration. And I think it was

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: basically saying it was saying Jackson versus Indiana or maybe Jackson versus Virginia.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But but either way, I'm curious and this actually may be a question for DOC instead. But I'm curious about those medical components and what people would actually receive and the efficacy of what the education programs are like and if there are medication options. I mean, this is anecdotal. I hear many complaints about medical services within jails. And, you know, I wouldn't want to establish something in this system that's set up for failure for the for the few folks who would who this would apply to. So do you just have any thoughts or comments on that?

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: I do think that, you know, always everything's done with the constitutional construct around us. What does this look like? And kind of each everyone gets to decide within the parameters what we would like. And that's why all of the states are very different in how they handle this. What does this look like? I'm not sure what the proposal I think it's within DOC. I think it would be a question for DOC about how does how is it different, right? Like what is what is being offered in this forensic facility that would be different than would be offered if you

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: were just at the Department of Corrections.

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: And I think the answer might be, I'll leave it for that area of expertise is there's this education component because right now that does not happen. They can medicate, they can treat only the underlying condition, right? Like whatever it is, if it's schizophrenia or any of the issues that may have been deemed, this is a reason why we think it's an obstacle to competency. There is nothing that there is a program to restore that. How do you work with your client? What are the players in court? What does a judge do? Those are some of the education components that competency restoration offers specifically to get you to that standard so that you can engage in that process. My understanding is that is not something that is offered in right now, and there's that component that is radically different. The treatment pieces about treating somebody, their condition is something that regardless of competency would be the responsibility of the Department of Corrections anyway. That you have to make sure that people are getting what they need, whether it's physical or mental, and it has to do that. There's the continuity of care when someone comes in saying, I have these issues, I'm diabetic, or I have these things, DOC is notified and they have to respond and do those kinds of things. So the baseline of treating somebody and their underlying conditions doesn't change facility to facility. The tools that you would be given or the level of care may, there may be a specialist that might be one side versus the other. I don't know that that's not my area. But yes, how it looks and what the services are provided. And also that's why I'm concerned with the amount of times someone's in there. It needs to look different than it's a punishment because it's not, it's a treat. And that's the kind of piece that's concerning. So that was why the AGO would just like to consider being more clear about competency is restored, then the person should not remain in that facility. Especially if you're also talking about conservation of resources or how do we make sure that whatever we can put forward to this forensic facility is being used in the best way possible. And just to house somebody who normally is competent in that same space doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean to say that if you're transferred back into the Department of Corrections, and you have been competent, that there isn't some kind of decompensation, and that decompensation could get looked at again, right? Competency is fluid before trial, during trial, all of these things can be brought

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: up with the court.

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: If there is a change in a circumstance that's concerning, then you would be deemed incompetent that same process would go forward and then you would be moved back into that facility, theoretically. If you needed a higher level of care, forensic facility, a Berlin where you just they can't meet that need other than within hospitalization, then that's still an option. It will always be an option.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So just so I'm understanding the process that I think this would contemplate is, so somebody commits a homicide, they are held without bail in a facility, found not competent, they're moved to the forensic facility part of that of the jail. And then competency restoration happens over the course of, let's say, I don't know, six months. They're found confident. And then there's another hearing to determine whether or not the hold without bail elements still meet for hearing for conditions or bail.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So that's kind of

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: that's one of the things that we struggle with right now about does does the original order hold? Right? There's a hold without and you go to facility when you come out, is that what's happening? Ports have been both ways on it. There's still, you know, can you revisit it? Of course you can. It makes the most sense to whatever it did to automatically happen. If that's what's happening and you were transferred into that facility, then you should just go back to where whatever status you have before. And then whatever side would like to revisit it, you can after that. Like the court can damage the court's attention.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So one sorry. One more question here. So if somebody commits a life offense and they're let's just say they're they're released on bail, competency eval happens, they're found not competent. They're then sent to the secure facility for competency restoration. Mhmm. Okay. That's what would happen in this under this structure.

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: It's my understanding. Yes. But Jared has his edits and whatever he had talked about. So I I don't wanna speak for him. In my understanding, yes. That's that's how it would be. Which is why, again, you would not wanna hold somebody in that facility purely on a condosy once the condos has been restored. You can move them out. Whatever the other status was and however that moves, you would move them from that facility, which is also different than after the NGRI because that's more indefinite or could be more indefinite.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Would it be permissible to if somebody who is out and about because they've paid bail and they're found not competent, can they be held in a secure facility just for competency restoration?

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: So this is where we get into kind of what others say to you in the misdemeanor conversation, Like mostly no, right? So your contemplate for the crimes that we are talking about, most likely people are not walking around, right? That's why the misdemeanors get a little bit more complicated, which is why it has not there's not competency restoration for misdemeanors right now in this bill. Like it's fighting off more than chew. Usually, there is some kind of program that they would have to go to like a probation, but not really. It's like confidence restoration, you must go to these men classes, you have to kind of check-in, you have to do these kinds of things. And that's what happens on a misdemeanor track or you're out track. This doesn't really contemplate that. And that's why there's that misdemeanor section, which is the only other part of what the AGO would like the committee to consider is right now as the misdemeanor section has, which again, with the understanding that there is no competency restoration. So when this happens, you're just not confident. For misdemeanor. Yeah, nothing happens. You're out, No one's addressing your mental health needs. No one's stressing anything. It's just like crossing your fingers, hoping maybe something will change. We'll get another, you know, competent competency bite at that apple, or you get arrested again, which can also trigger at that point, presumed competent, you then can do something else. So it's, we just don't give them the tools to help themselves at that point. And it still contemplates that. That's why the suggestion from the Attorney General's office would be just a minor switch of understanding that you know misdemeanors would be dismissed with prejudice. We would just ask that it be without prejudice because there is no tool that is aiding in allowing them to defend themselves. It's also more victim centered in the sense of you can imagine how frustrating it is for evictions and families on an assault or something else that there's a lot of serious crimes or impactful crimes in the misdemeanor world that we just kind of have to shrug our shoulders at, I know this happened to you and I know this is this, I'm sorry, it might still keep happening because there's nothing there that we can do. That if it would be dismissed without prejudice, if those crimes don't go on forever, there's statute of limitations that happen, there's those kinds of things that are, you know, Barbara's in that. But it's very hard to communicate to a family when you're talking about something that's fluid competency. I can be confident today, not confident tomorrow, confident the next day to say that such a huge gate comes down and says, No, I can't. Even within the stash of limitations, even if there's other crimes that come up that are mimicking this, that now the person is competent, and that person would get to be able to have accountability through the system. You can't because in this one moment in time, two years ago, we said no. It just seems like a very drastic measure to happen in something that's fluid and already has a natural end of its life, so to speak, because of the statute of limitations. It also will come down to prosecutorial discretion. Is it worth it to do that? If you have petty crimes, stealing, that kind of thing, is it worth it to bring it back? No. An assault maybe, right? Like so there's those kinds of things that it would be really good when talking to families about what happens here, to be able to say, we can't do this right now because of this certain set of circumstances that may change. And if it does, then we might have an opportunity to do that. So that would be the other piece that we would just ask the committee to consider that one change that it

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: would be without prejudice instead of with. Thank you.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I have a question about a different part of the bill. In section three, which is on starts on page four, on lines so first, I wanna sort of ask a question. So I'm circling back to the not guilty by reason of insanity recognizing that those types of complex trials likely take years. And I'm wondering if if there's a circumstance in which someone might be found not guilty by reason of insanity, but in the intervening time has gotten the treatment, has gotten the care so that when that happens, they are no longer a threat. They are so so that that is a a thing that could happen. And so this brings up my concern. On on line six, it says a person shall be transferred to a forensic facility if this not guilty by reason of insanity verdict happens. But if they are now in a place where they're no longer a threat, probably shouldn't be. So I

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: think this is where it's the nuance of kind of like the acquittal when you get to walk out the door and what you're reacting to being like, well, this person isn't responsible. So they should be able to walk

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: out the door. So they should be able to,

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: but it's a very unique nuance thing that happens. They're saying that you in fact are saying, like I said, in an acquittal, I'm saying this didn't happen, I didn't meet my birth. This is like, I did meet my birth. This is you murdered this person. And what we're saying is, it matters because at this point yes you did but you couldn't control the reason why you did it. Right. But

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: if now you are in control of that and it won't happen again you should be able to walk out the door.

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: That is where the forty day hearing comes into play. And so that is where that is. So what it addresses in that moment is we don't know, right? Like there has been no testimony about how that person is today, other than maybe if they testify, like you might get a sense of like, how are they doing? Because they're able to effectively communicate or there's some something that's happening where you might be able to get kind of an understanding. But up until that point, the court's not aware of what treatment has been going on in the Department of Corrections or any kind of anything that is very much between the defendant and their defense attorney. And that is a privileged kind of communication and their strategy. And there's all the reasons why you might not wanna share such things with the court at that time. You might not wanna do those or or with anyone else. So really, the only thing that the court has in front of it at that time is that verdict It's saying that in this moment, yes, you did kill somebody. And yes, in that moment, you couldn't control yourself to make any other choice. And so at that point, which is why you can't walk out the door, which is all other states very similar, that there is something where it's not a jail. It's something saying that as far as the court knows, you have had this issue, you're gonna be transferred to this facility. It's they're going to begin to figure out what you might need. How are you doing? What's going on in that space? So within those forty days, the court will have a hearing where it says, talk to us about what the plan is moving forward. And at that court hearing, you very well might be able to convince the court that everything you're not a threat to public safety anymore. There's nothing else that needs to be the court will have plenty of material to say that that's not the case. And then they would be able to then go and leave that. What this does is upon immediate verdict, what happens? And with what the court knows at the time, that is the safest place for both the defendant and the public. And what it will start to do and what I mean, again, this is for DOC, this is kind of how the powers that be that will structure it. What then within that facility starts to happen? Are they evaluated? What are the standards are evaluating? Whatever we set as this hearing, it will be important for the court to know that these factors have been met because nobody's done this yet. Nobody has addressed any of this. And I think this forty day period and it could happen sooner, I mean, the end of it is forty. Then we go into a different phase of what does this mean? And how can we be assured the public that this won't happen again, or the likelihood of this happening again is very low. These are the circumstances which we think are appropriate for that to happen. And defendant, how are you doing? What treatment do you need to engage in these kinds of things? So it just turns into a different phase that has been nobody's focus at that time, because everything up into that point will have been the trial. And that's the only moment in time anyone's gonna have to deal with. At that point, when you're transferred into that facility, my understanding or hope would be then it would be start the evaluation process about what that looks like so that everybody can make sure that the treatment plan and the rehabilitation plan is curtailed appropriately for everybody.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. That's helpful. I do have other questions about this section, but I don't think they're best. Exactly. Right.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think actually going along with that is and I think I'm getting this from your testimony that you've you've mentioned this a few times is there needs to be more language or some language about what the evaluation is if somebody is going to continue being held, what the evaluation is, what the treatment is moving forward.

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: I think it's helpful because again, when you're looking at so there's competency and when you do those evaluations, those are compelled interactions with treatment providers or psychiatrists or those kinds of things. The court saying, you must talk to someone, you must divulge this. That's why as a prosecutor, I can't use any of that information to prove anyone's guilt because it is a different function and it's protected. It changes when there's an NGRI because I can't claim an NGRI for anyone. A defense attorney can't even claim an NGRI for a client. It has to come from the client because they are going to open themselves up to meeting with a psychiatrist, giving over all of those that information, of that private data, all of those things, it just opens up everything. Here, I think, there's a lot of ways that prosecutors or courts don't have access to a lot of that material. And when we do, it's very much in statute, it's very much in that space as HIPAA and all these other kinds of things, people have a right to privacy when it comes to their own medical issues and treatment. This needs to be something where it says, if that's gonna happen on the evaluation side that, again, the court wants information about this, right? The court's gonna wanna know if you know, those medical records, they would have had them theoretically at trial with that NGRI. But again, it's not current treatment. And that would be something that I think would be important or I think be something that in that process, there would need to be some kind of evaluation where someone could speak to this particular issue that has nothing to do with anything else that has happened before because it's going it's a different phase. It's how is this person right now and how are they in the future and what what do we think they would need to be successful or address their issues or to to do those kind of things. And just no one would have been doing that up until this point. So if we are going to say they go immediately, then that would be the reason in my mind why is that you start to get that material for the court in order to have the information where everybody needs to make those decisions. And that would be the reason to have somebody there.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. The other piece I was just I think it got taken out, which I agree with in this new draft is the removal of the serious damage to property of another person. Obviously, substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. That makes sense. But is that correct that the property damage was

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: actually, you had you had you had you

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: had not had a chance to look over this in-depth.

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: But, again, that that's those are value, you know, judgments for you all to make. What what is the things that you think address public safety in the in the best way possible and what things you think and because we're talking about such a very specific subset, like a subset of a subset that, you know, the more particular you are about what concerns you, the better. Guessing is very hard for us to deal with, as you know, in court, and we spend a lot of time battling it out. So the clearer you can be about what you think is important in those metrics, the better it is. I

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: was able to it is still in the edits and suggestions, but I mean, we can get to that another time. I think risk of bodily injury alone is what makes the most sense rather than also adding damaged property at this this juncture. Okay. Thank you. Do you have any additional testimony or

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: No. That was just the those two kind of points from the agent. We are very supportive. Like we said of this, we know it doesn't address everything, but it's a starting point. It's desperately needed. And I think it will go a a long way to dealing with the most impactful pieces that we're struggling with right now with just no good answers. And so again, we just thank you for taking up this conversation. There are no easy answers and appreciate that.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Thank you. Committee, any additional questions or comments? Okay. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Fifteen We minutes. We can hear from the council. Just try to get some level setting here as

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to what direction we wanna move them. Good morning, everybody. Morning. Erica Skaczuk with the Office of Boards by the Council here to talk with the committee about possibly some direction to go in for an amendment or subsequent draft for S-one 193. I was taking some notes during Domenica's testimony and I think I have some thoughts possibly about what you might want

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: to do but also can just hear suggestions from you

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: first whatever you think makes the most sense. Senator Hashim? Yeah, I've got a few suggestions that I think are starting point and then a longer list of suggestions that are more more specific that I can consolidate later. But I think the biggest were the points related to competency is raised and somebody's found competent and restoration happens. And if they are then and if competency is later established or if they're held until a verdict I'm sorry. Yeah. They're held until competent and then another hearing happens to determine whether they get released or if there's bail or there's conditions. That's is that

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Right. On page three, I think you're talking about at least on the version I'm looking at. So a couple of places it says, at least on my version, the lines are the same.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You're looking at the bill is introduced or the No.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The the consolidated recommendations of the parties that was came in last night. It's the one I'm looking at. So section one subsection c, which on my version starts on the top of page three. That's where you're going as well. But it's same thing on line 11 as well. But it says it twice. Person shall remain at the forensic facilities. We are the persons who shortcompensate receives a verdict and person's underlying criminal case. So I think if I understood correctly, both in that place and a little bit further down in the same page, especially competency restoration services may be maintained until the person receives a verdict. I think the committee was leaning toward getting rid of that concept that competency restoration services are maintained until the person's restored to competency. That's I think if I'm hearing correctly, is the direction.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: I mean, just logically, how would you do otherwise? Right. If they're confident, how would you continue to try to restore confidence? It's a circular. Yes.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Yep.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Are we good with that change? Yeah. I

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: got it. I mean, I didn't answer it anyway. Yeah. I knew technically. Could I jump in with a question here? Yes. Sort of jumping to the next section, but it's because it's related to this piece. So this piece is talking about the services that the person gets while they are in the facility when they have gone into the facility through the incompetency track, right? Because there's these two different tracks that the person could end up in the facility, either they've been found incompetent, or they've been found not guilty by reason of insanity. And again, it's only for certain offenses, these life sentences, for life imprisonment. It can go in either way. In this avenue, in the competency restoration avenue, there's a fairly lengthy description of what the services would include. That's on page three again, subsection B talks about the services and how long they'll be maintained, that sort of thing and that's my understanding and then they're gonna look into this some more is that there's this is part of the constitutional overlay here that treatment must be provided to a person whose liberty is being infringed upon by them being held in a place if it's not incarceration, which it isn't. So the question I had was I didn't see any parallel to that in the other track, in the person who comes in because they've been found that guilty by reason of insanity and maybe that's, I heard the discussion happened. Maybe it was being contemplated that that would be added, but I wanted to make sure that that was where you were going because I think there's a constitutional requirement for that. Yeah. That that was the other piece that

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I do think needs to be clarified and added. And there is one other piece going back a bit, subsection d, where it says such service such services may include an appropriate any appropriate combination of medication, education, and so on. Should that be a shall instead of a may because the process is supposed to be restorative rather than, you know, incarcerative? Yeah.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's a fair point. So that in other words, if that you say May or you don't want to sort of inadvertently leave the option that those types of treatment services won't be provided at all. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And if there's anything other and I think a similar change would also be made for the insanity portion as well if we were to copy and paste that same section.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right, right. Yep, that makes sense.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Committee, any other? So

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: wanna preface what I'm about to say and maybe ask with I absolutely agree that there is a missing link here in terms of a brand new facility, but I have considerable concern about the constitutionality of saying it's not incarceration while having it based in a jail. And I'm wondering, Eric, if you have any thoughts on on the sort of constitutional overlay of of that aspect. It it to me, it doesn't pass the straight face test that this isn't jail, but it's in a jail.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think I will want to look into it some more, but at the same time, I do have some initial thoughts are that that you're correct that that it can't be just an incarcerated setting for it to pass constitutional requirements. But that a lot of that is gonna turn out in sort of when you think of the the different types of constitutional challenges, something is it usually can be divided into something that's either unconstitutional on its face or out as it's applied to certain the particular circumstances. On its face, it's very difficult to prove. It's got to be unconstitutional in every possible permutation. So it's hard to say in the abstract. It really would depend on an as applied challenge where somebody says we're really not getting any treatment services here in DOC. That's why I think you mentioned earlier that it's gonna be important to hear from DOC about what kind of services are going to be provided because that question is really going to be, I think, not going to turn so much on what building it's in. You know, is it a DOC building? As in, what services are really being provided? And if it really is treatment, then there's at least a fair argument that that is permissible. But if it's not, then it's less likely. And I remember, for example, the civil commitment cases turned on exactly that question. So it's hard to say in the abstract, but maybe that's another reason to be specific about requiring treatment services happen while the person's there.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: It's kind of helpful.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I wish I could be more definitive but

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah it just it's sort of on its face to me when it is in AJ open raises a lot of flags.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Understandable. Well, and I agree on it. On its face, it seems contradictory that it's not jail, but it's in the jail. But I'm looking at page eight and the definition. It says, a threat facility is a locked facility replacement required for the custody control, correctional treatment, and rehabilitation of committed persons. I wouldn't bat an eye if that was used as a definition for jail. So it seems like they're overlapping. It is a form of jail, but we're stressing the therapeutic aspects of it or the restoration aspects of it, whereas in the other setting you're stressing the custody and control and correctional treatment. So I think you're right, it's an inherent paradox, but I don't see that requiring it to be somebody somewhere else wouldn't change the fact that it's a sort of jail. You know what I mean?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: But it can't be. Constitutionally, it can't be a sort of jail.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I guess the question that I would ask would be, like, the inverse of it. So why wouldn't the Berlin psychiatric facility, which I think parts of it are locked and secure, right? So parts of the Berlin psychiatric hospital are locked and secure and the focus is treatment, but it's a secure facility. Why isn't that also a jail? Right. I mean, I feel like we're in the realm of

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: legal legal and constitutional gradations and subtleties. But in the main, if a room is locked and you're not allowed out, it's a jail. Like you might be detained, you might be, you know, there for life, whatever. But for the person who's in there, it's it's still effectively a jail, not a hospital. Although you might be getting services there. But I understand for purposes of the law, jail is different from a forensic facility. But to the senator's point, there's there's an obvious overlap in the consents. Just to follow-up, just because senator Baruth pointed us

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to this language and it brought up something you had mentioned Senator Hashim over still on page eight, line six. Again, same issue where the Department of Corrections may provide for the evaluation treatment. You might wanna that was also a shall I think.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You know, I suppose the other question I have, maybe which actually I'm sure isn't not for ledge counsel, more rhetorical, perhaps for somebody else. Why can't we just use the Berlin Psychiatric Hospital that I suspect already has more services right there in the building as opposed to trying to presumably retrofit part of the wing of southern states. Does anybody know anything about that?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I don't know if we have the right people in the room. There's probably

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Katie with the Office of Legislative Council. You'll need to hear from AHS. There are three different units there, and I know that they have designed it that way so that they can

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: have different levels of services. However, there can be Medicaid funding issues if you are

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: saying that it's hospital level treatment but it's actually more of a correctional setting then you couldn't use Medicaid to fund that. Are some

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: complications that you

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: might lose your Medicaid funding for the whole facility if you start offering more correctional type services than clinical mental health treatment services on one of the units. And I know folks at AHS could provide a lot more context on

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: that. Okay. Senator Hose.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Are there is I guess, is there case law perhaps from other states supporting the constitutionality of having a jail that isn't a jail?

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Possibly, but I don't know off the top my head about it. Okay. But but at least within this type of context, it there might well be some case law that articulates some of the parameters that you'd be working under as far as providing treatment, whether it's more like a correctional facility, whether it's more like a facility that's designed for treatment. But also I'm not sure this is pretty new area of the law so there may not be as much case law as we would hope and there certainly isn't much decisional authority from the Vermont Supreme Court about this. I think you may have heard from judge only about that already. But that in some respects, you shouldn't be surprised that were something like this to

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: pass that, of course, there will be

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: some challenges. There will some to expect that.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. I just I in in addition to the constant constitutional concerns, just also have concerns with DOC being tasked to be a mental health provider. They're not. They're a jail provider. Like, so I have some real significant concerns with this aspect, both the constitutionality, but also, like, DOC is not a mental health provider. So I don't I just I and I'd really I would love to sort of get a sense of our other states co housing a forensic facility that it can't be a jail in their jails. Is there any case law supporting or not supporting that? That would just be helpful.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. So in other words, in other states, is the forensic facility a separate, you know, physical facility as opposed to another room in the jail? Right. Hear you.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Or is there any support for tasking DOC to

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: be a messable provider? May

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: I?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes.

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Something else just to put on the table as part of the conversation is that DMH already does a secure facility that's not a hospital. There's already a secure residential recovery facility. People who are in that are meeting the statutory need for involuntary mental health treatment, but that is already a locked facility that is offering mental health services that's operated by DMH that's separate from Mhmm. Like, highest level one psychiatric level of care.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So what would be to stop us from creating an additional wing there to do this work? I think that's a question for Okay. The new

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: wing at the hospital?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: No. At the already locked mental health facility that is not at the hospital.

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Wait. Because now I'm back to, like,

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: if we have this, don't we already have this? When the well, this forensic facility conversation, as you all know, has been

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: going on for many years. And the last time that it kind of got momentum and then the momentum fell away, it sounded like some of the things that DMH wanted to accomplish with the forensic facility they could accomplish with the secure residential recovery facility if there were some law changes around, for example, administration of involuntary medication at the Secure Residential. And at the time,

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: the legislature went forward with those changes for the Secure Residential. I think you'd have to hear more from DMH and from DOC to see if the services that they're envisioning with this particular proposal are are now different from the range of services that are being offered at the secure residential. Mhmm. Because if if the issue is we don't have enough space or enough pets, like,

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: I don't see why we would create something else if actually we already have the

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: capacity to do what we say we're trying to do. So that thank you. So

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I know in a couple of minutes, at least we have to shift gears to s 183, but I don't wanna cut you guys off if there's more points you want to share.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Not that I have at the moment. I think we've got to see some more legal investigation to do with some of the other states approaches and whether there's been any cases on that. At one point, I think I heard you say Senator Hashim and make sure that the property damage piece goes out as well. But no other specifics other than what we talked about already and trying to come up with some language around treatment with respect to folks that are in the facility for not guilty by reason of insanity on that track and some of the language changes. I guess that doesn't have to be decided now, but I think there's still the issue of whether with respect to the dismissals of people who have been found incompetent to stand trial for inactive cases for certain periods of time, those be dismissed with or without prejudice? I think you've heard some different points of view on that. Not that that's an e from a drafting perspective, very easy to deal with, so you don't have to decide that right now necessarily, but just sort of put it on your list of things that you think about it. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Yeah. Committee, anything else to let counsel right now?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: No. Okay.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: The last piece of witnesses that we need to hear from, I think we need to hear from DOC, more specifically, the health care, mental health care providers, whoever those folks may be. Any other witnesses that we need to find? Anybody?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. I think I'm trying to go through the insurance in the last couple days. We need to hear from legal aid again. DMHHS, DOC. We have BGS on the

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: list too for the contract. Right. Well, DMH was supposed to come in today, but they have to cancel. And, yeah, and then DOC. And then,

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: yeah, yes.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Did you receive the you receive the letter from the Emergency Nurses Association in support?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No. I well, I'm sure I have received it, but I haven't complimented all these. No.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm just wondering if they care to have a seat at the table here just Emergency Nurses Association. The Emergency Nurses Association. It's Liz Coutu, BSNR and director at large government affairs chair, Anne Abramow.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Do you mind forwarding that to Emily for the contact information here? And then we'll work around with the schedule for next week and the coming weeks as we continue to work on this. Dominica, did you have any thoughts on additional witnesses that you think would be helpful in this conversation?

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Not right now, but I so if you reach out to Eric if I have any.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. So I I think this is a good first next step to get a fresh copy in front of us and then go back again down the list of our concerns or the things that we agreed with or disagree with, and then we can take it from there starting next week. That sounds like a good one.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sounds great. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Thank you.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Can you hear that, Henry?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sir, I just pulled the you. Thank you. Alright. So next up, we have Jason Webster. Jason, I do have to step out for just two minutes, but brother Norris here. This is his bill after all. So he can take the lead here for a couple of minutes, but I'll be right back. And we're going into S 183 with Jason Webster. But and the floor is all yours. Okay?

[Jason Webster, Co-owner/Operator, Huntington Homes]: Okay. Well, thanks for having me today. For the record, my name is Jason Webster. I am co owner operator of Huntington Homes. We are a modular manufacturing company located right here in Vermont. We've been building homes in Vermont since 1978. We've probably built plus or minus 5,000 houses since that time. And I am here, I appreciate you taking the time to just hear me on my view of this bill right now. And it really is, I'm not an attorney, I don't know the legal tests. Fortunately, we work really hard to stay out of this situation, so I don't know it as well as maybe some other people do. But I wanted to give kind of a view of just where the rubber meets the road and hopefully, you know, the saying of we're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hopefully, we don't we're not going to end up with some unintended consequences that might be worse than the problem we have today, right? Like I understand there are some bad actors, there have been some things that have happened, where consumers need protections against those contractors. But, I think that, you know, the majority of construction is happening right now without those issues. And I just want to make sure that we're not doing something or giving a we're not we're doing something to be fair to those contractors. And I want to start kind of like way way at the top, the view of the construction industry in Vermont, specifically residential construction. And it needs to start with an acknowledgement that we are in we are basically an entirely unregulated industry, right? We're one of the only states in the country, if not the only state in the country, that has no building codes for single family residential construction. We have no builder licensure, we have no builder training. It really

[Alex (partner of Leah Rosin Pritchard)]: is

[Jason Webster, Co-owner/Operator, Huntington Homes]: unregulated. Because of that, what we have is that without building codes, every project that's being built, we don't have a uniform standard that we're building to, right? So, have all these builders that were taught by their fathers, their grandfathers, whatever you know publications they read, that they've kind of self adopted their own standards as to what they think construction is. We also are generally, you know, no offense to us, but you know we're a pretty unsophisticated bunch. You know we don't have big contracts, they're pretty vague, you know they're pretty general. And so, my my point with it being is that especially on new on new home construction, there's an there's an awful lot that happens in that build, right? We're we're assembling, we're being hired by a client to come on-site to assemble for them, you know, of individual pieces with subcontractors, you know, with vendors that are constantly making substitutions. We never had, most of us don't have a full picture of what we're building from the beginning, right? So we have clients that are making changes along the way, asking us to, you know, make those changes for them. There's a lot of changes that happen that are, you know, mutually exclusive because you changed this product, you know, we now can't do this insulation package or, know, you with a subcontractor have changed to this heating system. And a lot of that is not documented with the change orders, right? It just it really is, it's a lot it's a lot looser than I think you think it might be, right? That that construction doesn't, and the construction contracts for big projects for for whole houses, usually that that construction doesn't fit into this nice tidy little box that after the factor, if something goes south between a client and their contractor, the build where that tiny little box can then be kind of like dissected, dissected to find out, you know, where some sort of intent might be if a contractor was trying defrauding a client, or if it was just a miscommunication or a different set of expectations. And so, and again, a lot of those decisions are not being tracked by change orders. They're just kind of how, you know, how a project kind of goes down. And so, usually when a project goes south between a contractor and a client, it really is most likely about a disagreement about what they both agreed to. Yes, there's occasional cases and they're terrible that a fraud, but I think the majority of what's happening when it does go south with a contractor is more of a disagreement than it is fraud. It's a lot more it's a lot more kind of like gray of an issue than it is a black and white issue, and that I think the courts are doing I think the courts then have to kind of work their way through the gray issues to find if there's fault anywhere in there. So my whole big point is, is when you're when you're creating and drafting legal language, I think it's going to be hard to create an intent test in there because the documentation just isn't really going to be behind it that you can dissect to find the intent. The other thing that happens a lot in construction is that, and

[Andrew (Vermont Home Builders & Remodelers Association representative)]: this is

[Jason Webster, Co-owner/Operator, Huntington Homes]: just the realities of it, and I'll kind of use two examples. You know, there is an electrical code that, it isn't adopted for single family residential in the state, but electricians are licensed by the state, and so to protect their own licenses and their insurances, they're supposed to be building to an electrical code. And so one would assume with that, then maybe their contract would reference an electric code. But there are lots of things in the individual codes that are, they're knowingly overlooked, because the code hasn't, the code and the products haven't necessarily kept up. I'll use an example on the electrical side where, you know, part of electric code says that a dryer, right, a clothes dryer is supposed to be protected by an arc fault or an AFCI breaker. We all, we in the industry know that appliances aren't yet wired for an arc fault breaker, right? The neutral and the grounds are hooked together in the appliance. And so, if you don't, if the electrician doesn't go in and rewire the appliance itself, when anybody plugs that appliance in, you're going to trip the AFCI breaker always and constantly, right? And so, if it's a simple test of did an electrician go to contract to build to code knowingly wasn't going to install the AFCI breaker, are they now criminally liable, right? Is it are they now criminal for of doing what they've done? You know, another example of this, and this is more to the residential builders, is, know, technically we're supposed to be, you know, building houses to the energy code in Vermont, right? Vermont, we don't have a building code, but we have an energy code. And that there are the Department of Public Services own studies have shown that even back in 2015, when the code was very basic before it's the much more complicated than it is today, even back in 2015, almost half of the houses built in Vermont were not meeting the technical requirements of the energy code. We were that's happening because the energy code isn't trained or enforced. And so now is a contractor now criminally responsible for have not building, you know, knowingly not built to a code that they were responsible to, right? So that's coming into more of kind of just like, you know, it's just a fairness test.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah, have a couple of questions, but they might actually be for the chair with his attorney hat on just because I'm also not a lawyer. If there is and and I hear you saying that there is sort of going to be difficulty to prove intent, but as I would see it, that would benefit the contractors, not the person seeking. Right? Because if you can't prove the intent, you can't hold someone criminally liable.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: More of you.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: More you. I just wanna make sure that I'm I'm wrapping my head around that. And then my next question, maybe for you, it may be for someone who's not in the room, but who is responsible for code enforcement?

[Jason Webster, Co-owner/Operator, Huntington Homes]: Well, with building codes, right?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Nobody. Okay, so

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: that seems to be a problem.

[Andrew (Vermont Home Builders & Remodelers Association representative)]: I'm not

[Dominica Padula, Chief of the Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: sure if it's

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: a problem we would solve in this room Because I would assume that, yes, you are responsible to whatever codes are in the law. And if you're not doing it simply because you know no one will enforce it, actually you should be held responsible for that. But I think we're under uncovering a different problem, which is that there is actually no one doing the enforcement.

[Jason Webster, Co-owner/Operator, Huntington Homes]: With the building code, there is no there is there's nothing. Zero goose.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I understand that. Also a problem.

[Jason Webster, Co-owner/Operator, Huntington Homes]: Yes.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: But with the electrical code, one of the things I heard you say is is should someone be held responsible for not following electrical code that they're not responsible for? But just because no one's enforcing it doesn't mean you're not responsible for following it.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think Andrew wants to.

[Andrew (Vermont Home Builders & Remodelers Association representative)]: Yeah. Sorry. Jason, Mike, there there is enforcement for electrical and Correct?

[Jason Webster, Co-owner/Operator, Huntington Homes]: There is enforcement for electrical and plumbing on multifamily and commercial. There is no enforcement, there's no application process, there's no permitting, there's no enforcement of plumbing and electrical on single family residential.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay, which I see as a problem, but I sort of challenge the idea that because there's no enforcement, you're not responsible to it. You are. But, again, I'm not sure solving code enforcement is this committee's jurisdiction. Right. But I do wanna flag it as a problem. Mhmm.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah. And thank you, miss Webster, for your testimony. Is it still the case that there's no requirement for a written agreement between a contractor and a person who hires them. There

[Jason Webster, Co-owner/Operator, Huntington Homes]: there is there is currently a requirement through OPR that any work if there's work that's being done that's more than $10,000 worth of work, that there is a basic contract between, you know, the contractor and client for that work.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Right. So years ago, was on the committee that the senator was referring to, which is economic development, And we had a small contractor bill that basically only said for work under that limit, you needed to have a written document, very simple form, agreeing what. So earlier when you mentioned that sometimes the problem arises through a misunderstanding about what what was agreed to, that push back then was an attempt to get at that, but it was it was opposed very vigorously by contractors large and small. And I always thought that that was the easiest fix to those smaller disagreements and lack of enforcement. But that's a little off track here. Just wanted to check-in with how bad we were doing with that piece.

[Jason Webster, Co-owner/Operator, Huntington Homes]: Yeah, and I can't speak, I mean, I can only speak to my own, what my own company has always built under contracts always, right? Because they protect us as much as they protect the client, right? It's where we're agreeing to the general scope of work and the price of what's being performed or what's being provided. My, I guess my point is, is what I'm asking the attorneys that are going to draft this language is to make sure you understand that the contracts generally that are between a, even a fully well intentioned and detailed contractor and their client is not the tidy little box that has every I dotted and T crossed that you think it might. There are lots of allowances and there are lots of changes made along the way that may not be documented with change orders. So when you write this rule, make sure that the test is not on the administrative end of was that not what was built, that there needs to be some sort of like substantial or damages threshold that has to be crossed because likely the majority of contracts aren't built to every I dotted and t crossed.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So senator Norris has his hand up, and then I'll I'll have a question from senator Bahoski, and then Andrew passed.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Jason, I'm the one that brought this bill forward. Obviously, I was, of course, by a constituent, in Franklin County. And but in looking at this bill, I think, from moving it from civil back to criminal, it allows my constituent and others to pursue this criminally. But by pursuing it criminally, I think it gives you as much, if not more, protection from the contractors because now the state has to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt versus preponderance of an evidence in a civil court. So I so I don't know what section of the bill you're really referring to that, you know, makes a hairy tad up on your back here.

[Jason Webster, Co-owner/Operator, Huntington Homes]: So again, I am not I'm not the expert on the legal end of how this would play out, or more or less protections for either party on the legal side of it. What again, my point is from a larger picture view of making understood and that there's a legal test of, that's more like outcome or damages are substantial than it is a legal test tied back to a contract document, More of kind of just the administration of the document, because they just generally don't exist.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Jason, I think one point I wanted to highlight is, yeah, I guess, something that you had mentioned earlier as to the fact that a contract doesn't necessarily encompass every single thing that may or may not happen, you know, with a job because new issues arise. You might find out that the wall you wanted to take down is a actually load bearing wall. That complicates things. Obviously, I'm sure there's a million other variables, but what this language gets at is if you're entering a contract knowingly with an intent intent to not perform what is listed in the contract, that's where the problem is. And the knowingly intent is the third highest in terms of the mens rea, which is the the mental intent to commit an offense. And best as I can remember, I think it means engaging in conduct consciously knowing that a certain result will occur. And and so I think, you know, it I I think it's clear when there is a difference between realizing that part of the contract may not work out because of unforeseen circumstances versus entering into the contract knowing that you're gonna take a certain amount in a deposit and just, hit the road. So I guess that's just more of a comment. If you have any thoughts, happy to hear.

[Jason Webster, Co-owner/Operator, Huntington Homes]: I don't have any comments on that. I think that it's an unfortunate. Clearly, there's a constituent that that happened to, and that's an unfortunate situation that that happened. Again, don't I hope that this legislation doesn't have more unintended consequences and flaming arrows for attorneys against misunderstandings that happened between legitimate and honest contractors and their clients. And I hope that that, you know, we're not I hope that clearly when things go south, they go south. And again, it's most most often, right? It's unfortunate the constituent had this problem. Most often they go south because we're not builders are not supported by the state of Vermont, right? You're not you don't give us the support we need to be a licensed regulated industry building to a code that's a standard. So we're just, we're just kind of out there and misunderstandings arise based on, know, we have different expectations where we're coming at the project. And, when those happen, attorneys come in and they're going to be grabbing every flaming arrow they can find to for their clients against their contractors. And I hope that this didn't just create a whole bunch of flaming arrows against contractors that don't deserve it.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Thank

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Vyhovsky has a question and then Andrew, and then I think we're gonna have to start shifting.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. I I mean, I have a couple of things, and and it is sort of circling back to the legal test being intent, which is quite a high test. I mean, if if if there's no change order, then there's nothing to prove intent. Really sort of making the point Senator Baruth made, I actually think this takes away. But what I also heard you say is that it would be more supportive if there was a licensing and regulation process, which I also think we've tried to do with the contractors coming in quite loudly in opposition to it. I guess I'm confused. Feel like we're sort of damned if we do, damned if we don't in terms of trying to support you all.

[Jason Webster, Co-owner/Operator, Huntington Homes]: Well, I think with the, and I will speak very honestly about this for my this is myself. Is that what where the contractor pushback is coming from on the adoptions of building codes is that the what would be worse than not having a building code would be a very poorly created and administered building code, frankly, like our current energy codes. And where we would be, where we're it's a faith thing, right? We don't have the confidence that there's going to be a full code program like Massachusetts has, which we build in, New York has, where we build, New Hampshire, we build, Connecticut, we build, Maine, we build. We build under these codes, but they have to be a full, full program, not something that's, you know, proverbially half baked. Because for a contractor, there's ultimate protection with a code, right? If we apply for a project, right, we apply for a permit, we go into an office and we say, this is what we're going to build. We build it. The inspector comes out and inspects it. And the inspector signs off on it and says, yes, you built what you did. Closed. At closed book, we move on to the next one. Right now Vermont, and this is tying into everything that's going on in Vermont right now, Vermont we don't have that, we have no statute of repose, right? There's nothing. And so the builders are, and I don't think most of them understand the risk they're taking currently forever by building these projects.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you, Jason.

[Andrew (Vermont Home Builders & Remodelers Association representative)]: Let me say this real quick. I will take this offline. I'll talk

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to you more. Senator Vyhovsky put her finger on the problem,

[Andrew (Vermont Home Builders & Remodelers Association representative)]: which is we don't have an enforceable we do not have a functioning code system for building in Vermont. What you're hearing is kind of a culmination of angst around this issues that we have been fighting in other committees. I would say that this group of builders, this is the Vermont Home Builders Remodel Association, they're not opposed to code. Jason will I'll speak for you, Jason. He builds homes in Vermont and in Massachusetts. Massachusetts is a full blown code program. Gotta follow a to z, zip code, and Vermont doesn't. I think Jason would tell you, he prefers Massachusetts model because he knows what the rules are up ahead of time. So this group of builders is not gonna be opposed to discussions about licensing and code enforcement. He doesn't want half a code, and that's what we have now. And we have no

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: underlying building code,

[Andrew (Vermont Home Builders & Remodelers Association representative)]: but we do have this bespoke RVs, residential building energy code that I know I used that word on the side, but I will discuss this more offline to frame that a little better. But I I Jason, I think they've answered some of your concerns. Think.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. Let's fix that.

[Andrew (Vermont Home Builders & Remodelers Association representative)]: Yeah. Yes. Well, you're our new champion, so thank you for speaking. Alright. You're welcome now.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you, Jason and Andrew for bringing these concerns here, and it's we always gotta make sure we get as many perspectives as we can that are, you know, relevant to the language that we're dealing with. So thank you for bringing

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: it up. Thank you for your work.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Good evening.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Alright. Maybe we're going now to back to us one ninety three. Have do you mind admitting the folks?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: This is on track. I'm gonna go grab my

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: brand new. Should be done by. I was just gonna get up off the

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I was also just gonna get up.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Alright. We are shifting gears back to s one ninety three. It's still 02/13/1030. Sorry. We're a few minutes behind. But thank you all for joining us on Zoom today. And I I I know the three of you may have spoken offline about maybe how you want to present your different stories, and I just wanna give you the space. We've got about fifteen minutes. So however you folks would like to share your stories and and present, I will leave that to you. And also, please just introduce yourself for the record as well when

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: we start.

[Kelly Carroll, Founder, Voices for Vermont Victims]: Alright. So I'm gonna start. My name Carol and I am a resident of Bennington, Vermont, mother of murder victim Emily Hammond and I am the founder of Voices for Vermont Victims and I would like to yield any time that I have to Alex and Leanne and if I am if time does not allow, I will either ask to be on your agenda at a later date, I will submit a written statement. I have been following your testimony over the last several weeks. I do have some comments some questions to some questions that were asked this morning. If I don't have time to address those, I will reply in writing to all of you. I'd like to introduce Alex and Leanne. Thanks,

[Alex (partner of Leah Rosin Pritchard)]: Kelly. I heard my name first in the list, so maybe I'll just speak first. Can everyone hear me alright?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes.

[Alex (partner of Leah Rosin Pritchard)]: Okay. Great. I also had some comments on what I was hearing today. One of them being that basically, I think best practices right now are that understanding that people who are dealing with mental health illness are basically in a they're in a in a state where they are often in fight or flight mode and that being considered Setting is very important for restoration of competency. And if they are in a Department of Corrections setting, things that are, like, up to date standards is that usually if someone is attempting to be therapeutic with someone in a mental health crisis, they are not wearing uniforms because those can be triggering. There's a lot of different standards there. So I think that there, that is something to be said for, you know, a designated facility that if the goal is for restoration of competency, that there's a lot of factors that can be taken into consideration around that. Just any place may not be the best place and there might be, it might very well be better to designate a specific atmosphere and environment. Also, when I hear about people talking about competency in general, it sounds to me like people are kind of assuming that that means like a cure. And it's not really cure but it's an ongoing process and so, you know, I know there was some language around around being in this facility until competency is reached and I think competency is something that goes in and out. And it needs continual maintenance. And one of the things that I also just wanted to differentiate between people who are in jail versus in an involuntary hold is that there is the involuntary hold has conditions that can be met in order to be no longer held involuntarily. Whether that be competency is reached and they go to stand trial or depending on what the crime is and what the sentencing is. So yeah, I'm sorry for backtracking here, but my name is Alex and I am here in memoriam of my partner, Leah Rosin Pritchard, who was murdered in Brattleboro, Vermont, just shy of three years ago. And part of speaking to her and her memory is to continue to speak up for people with mental health disabilities and advocate for them. And also recognizing that until the state is willing to take a stance on these things, there is not really any, there's no justice in the sense that there's no state sponsored verdict of saying, like, what happened is wrong. And I also just wanna say that there's a lot of language around referring to the survivors as victims. And I hear that and understand, and I think it's in the name of Kelly's organization, the Voices for Vermont Victims, that survivors are here speaking for them. And at this point, it feels more like we are collateral damaged in the sense that there's this there's this unwillingness to do what it takes to have a justice process completed. You know, I know that this has come up multiple times. It's been a bill that's been proposed multiple times and I'm all for getting it right. And if there's this precedent that so many other states have a system in place for it. Why is it an exception in Vermont? And why is there this gap that's obviously not fairly represented? And I think that's the end of my comment as of now.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you, Alex. I appreciate your testimony. Leanne? Well, I'm sorry. Did anybody have any questions for Alex? Not seeing any questions. So thank thanks again, Alex. And, Leanne, the floor is all yours.

[Leanne Billings]: Yeah. My name is Leanne Billings, and I'm kind of here twofold. On 10/02/2022, my son was murdered in South Burlington, Vermont. We never went to trial until November, 2025, and we are still waiting for a sentencing, which was just scheduled for April 27. So this has been a long road. During this time, we had numerous stops and starts. Our murderer was evaluated three times for competency, found competent every time. I would suggest that even though competency is fluid, that right off the gate, we schedule a competency evaluation for people that are accused of murder regardless. And then the second part of this is, I worked for many years in the mental health field in Vermont. I worked at a place called Second Spring, which is a step down facility. We deal with a lot of forensic people, and, they do an amazing job, but they're not a secured facility. So if you were looking at a model, at Second Spring, everything is done with love. And people are treated with respect and dignity, but, again, it's not a lockdown facility. I've also worked at Brattleboro Retreat on Tyler 4, which is the floor that most of the involuntary commitments go to. And most recently, before moving back to Tennessee, I was the director of a MyPad program in Addison County. And a MyPad program is where high acuity folks who are really struggling with mental health issues are hard to house. And so instead of putting them in a group home where other people are not necessarily safe and the community is not safe and they're not really getting the treatment they need, they go to a program called MyPad, which has staff twenty four seven. We distribute meds. And, again, everything was done with love. So I think that if our goal is to house people who are accused of these heinous crime crimes or even people who are in danger of committing these heinous crimes, I think a model that we need to look at is absolute security and also making sure that the program involves doing everything with love. Like, just doing everything with respect and dignity and, you know, monitoring folks and making sure that, we are thinking interest as well as restoring competency so that there can be some closure. I know Kelly has been waiting five years plus, and it does the road still looks very dark. I just want you guys to know that, like, this is a horrific thing

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: that I've been through a whole lot in my life. And the delays

[Leanne Billings]: and the stalling and the not having a voice in any of this

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: is the hardest thing that you could ever imagine. It's just not fair, and it takes a toll.

[Leanne Billings]: I don't think any of us want people to be treated harshly or inhumanely, but I have to tell you that I have watched people be released from these programs time after time, and they're not ready. They're not ready, but the beds are needed. And it's scary to send someone out knowing that they could commit a horrible crime because they're not ready to go onto the streets. And I guess that's all I have.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. I'm curious regarding the I I know you'd mentioned at the beginning that there were three competency evaluations in a row and the defendant was found competent each time. Just can can you provide me just with your understanding of what happened and why they kept having these other competency evaluations?

[Leanne Billings]: So the defense ordered the first two, and then they were both he was found competent in both of them. And then on March 10, we were of 2025, we were supposed to finally have a trial. We went for the pretrial motion on a Thursday. Mind you, I travel from Tennessee for every one of these hearings. On Thursday, the jury was set to be picked on Monday. Friday afternoon at 04:00, we were told that, the judge had granted a state psychiatric evaluation for competency, and we were gonna have to wait for that to be scheduled and take place. That was March, and we never got a trial until November. He was convicted after four hours, November 10.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And I I should have asked this question to Alex as well, but I'm I'm curious for actually all three of you. Ian, you had mentioned victims needing a voice in this process as well. Do you have thoughts or recommendations on how to improve that or what make the process more accessible for whether it's survivors, family members, victims to have a voice in this?

[Leanne Billings]: I can tell you that we were never acknowledged in court, which is not a huge deal. But one of the things that stands out for me personally is my family comes from all over the place. And like I said, I travel from Tennessee. The judge said for scheduling at the hearing on Thursday. Well, if we finish up the jury pick early enough on Monday, why don't we start the trial Monday afternoon? And I literally stood up and said, how do how do I get folks here on that sort of a notice? Like, his my my other two children, my whole family, how do I get them here? And they finally said, no. We will stick to the schedule and start on Tuesday morning. But that's just some of it. I mean, I was given. I missed two, hearings. I did them via Zoom instead of in person. I was given the wrong meeting number. I was given the wrong password. I'm freaking out because I don't know what is gonna happen at this status conference, and I can't even get in. We are not informed at all. Not at all.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thanks. So so better communication from the court? Is that

[Leanne Billings]: Yeah. Better communication with with the court and just the status of everything that's going on. We we had no clue from one minute to the next. I was scared to death and holding my breath that they were making plea agreements without letting us know or that we were headed to the I mean, you just beg for closure, and it's just so hard to to not know.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Alex, did you wanna answer that one as well?

[Alex (partner of Leah Rosin Pritchard)]: Yeah. Absolutely. I guess I'll just kind of explain the the, you know, the process shortly after Leah's murder. I left the state and went down to stay with her family for about a year. And so I was contacted by a victim's advocate probably within a week or something. You know, the time there is a little hazy. And they they kind of said to me, oh, like, if there's any services or anything you need, like, we have reimbursement money for that. And that was both helpful. And when I asked, like, if there was any support groups, any sort of specific counseling, any recommendations for that, there was they were kind of the answer was no. We don't know of anything specifically, but if you find something, like, we can reimburse that. So at that point, I recommended that that be a part, of advocating for someone is that there's an offer to make. And yeah, just the process. And when someone's grieving, the process of having to, you know, having to, like, communicate and kind of hold another, agency accountable for repayment for different things. It's it's a lot and I feel like that process should be much much clearer or you know, or the the name of victim victim's advocate could be changed over to like caseworker. You know, it's because that's more of what it felt like. It's just like, here, we're here to distribute your money but like, we have no recommendations for you and no ideas of what, you should do.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: One thank you. One follow-up for that, I'm I'm curious about, so hearing notices generally, go through email to all the attorneys. I'm curious if there was a system or mechanism where you folks were getting the hearing notices either mail either through mail or through email, or did you have to rely on hoping you got a phone call from the victim's advocate or just checking the calendar or how see yeah. Any any comments on

[Leanne Billings]: I checked the calendar nonstop. My ex husband, my son's dad, never got a notice even though he provided his email and his mailing address. He ended up getting two notices, like, a week after both of the, hearings took place. So it was hit or miss. My my family relied on us checking the the calendar.

[Alex (partner of Leah Rosin Pritchard)]: Yeah. I feel like I've been I have been informed via email, but it's also I think it's dependent on usually I'm informed by the attorney, right? The like the attorney that's representing the victim and the state and it's dependent on them and their process. So we've also been through the the first attorney assigned, retired within about six months. The second attorney assigned retired, you know, probably another twelve months after that. So now I'm on a third attorney and it's not a local representative attorney like I'm down in Brattleboro. So if I wanna speak to this attorney in person, I'm pretty sure they're out of Montpelier. So it's a different process. Every all the communications now via email, which to me is not as not as effective or personal.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. No. That's that's a fair point. Think yeah. There there is the personal aspect of it. I mean, I I would wanna get phone calls as well. I think also there could be one other solution just kind of as a belt and suspenders approach of requiring victims advocates to add family names or other survivor names to the list of interested parties that will automatically get an email whenever the court issues an order or a hearing notice because it's it's it's just another backstop to make sure that, you know, folks are getting those notices directly. And that way you're not, you know, refreshing the calendar on your computer screen to see if there's any updates or anything like that. So, yeah, all all good points. I see Sarah,

[Alex (partner of Leah Rosin Pritchard)]: but hope she

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: asked a question.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. I actually have a question for you in in regards to some of the stuff that that I'm hearing. We, I think, asked for a report on victim notification.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Should can we have Jennifer Coleman in to talk about that report so that we can I mean, it's a little outside the scope of this bill, but

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No? I knew there was another bill floating around well, well, actually the report. I thought there was also a bill on this topic. And so I'm wondering if perhaps there might be some elements

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: from that that we can attach to this and see where

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: that goes unless it seems like the other bill is likely to pass. But we should just hear from Jennifer Paul.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. What what you're flagging for me thank you. Thank you for being here. I certainly, as as the survivor of a fairly horrific crime myself, I absolutely understand how dehumanizing the criminal legal process can be for victims and survivors. And what I'm hearing from both of you who have testified is that we need to come back to that victim and survivor notification piece that is in progress. So thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I wanted to unless there's anything else from Leanne and Alex, I want to shift to Kelly to hear what your thoughts and perspectives might be on this process in the bill.

[Kelly Carroll, Founder, Voices for Vermont Victims]: Yes. And just a couple of comments. H six twenty seven, a bill right now that is up with the house judiciary, and that is all about victims' rights. And I think all of us being Leanne, Alex, Joanne Cortenden, also advocates a lot, Jennifer Pullman, I think we would all agree that victims' rights to be in just about all of our legislation. And it would be really nice if Vermont would have a victims' bill of rights because we're one of a handful of states that do not. And I'm very happy to hear that Jennifer Pullman is going to be on the list because she'll she's certainly more qualified than me to talk about that. Thank you and I will try to speak quickly. Good morning, Chair Hashim and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing us to speak with you today. My name is Kelly Carroll. I am the mother of Emily Hammond who was murdered in 2021 and the founder of Voices for Vermont Victims. I am here in support of s one ninety three. This bill is not theoretical to me. It is not policy in the abstract. It is personal, and it is urgent. And over the past several weeks, this committee has heard testimony that s one ninety three is unnecessary. That was stated by Jack McCullough of legal aid. Representative Donahue also that sentiment publicly in an online publication, and I respectfully disagree. If anything has been unnecessary, it has been the years of delay, confusion, and lack of accountability victims have endured under Vermont's current system. In 2023, the full legislature passed language to convert a wing of the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital into a forensic facility. It was it passed Senate and House Judiciary Committees. It passed the full House and Senate. It was signed by the governor. And then in 2024, it was removed by House Human Services at the eleventh hour of the session. And I remember at that time, Senator Sears was chair of of this committee, and he and I had spoken a lot about that. And he basically said that the bill, and I forget if it was '89 or '91, but or it might have been 01/1992, but anyway, it was better than nothing. It was a compromise and and that's like a, you know, politics is compromise. So, they ended up putting that forward because it was too late to fix it. So, the issue has been before you before, and I just want to ask you directly, is public safety unnecessary? Is the forensic forensic system of care unnecessary? Is preventing the next victim unnecessary? Because we do not currently have a forensic system in Vermont. We have treatment. DMH provides treatment and that is very important, but treatment alone is not a forensic system. So, to now characterize S 193 as unnecessary, ignore that legislative history and it ignores the years of advocacy by DMH itself asking for a forensic solution. And the forensic system requires secure placement, monitoring, supervision, programming, treatment, and accountability to the court. And victims have the right to expect all of that. Yesterday, Jared Bianchi showed you a video. That video was made by Darren Pronto, my daughter's killer, words, and I've been talking about it up here for years, and you were finally able to see it. In that video, he mocked Vermont's legal system. He bragged about the gaps. He talked about how you could kill someone and not face consequences, and those were his words, not mine. And fifty two days later, my Emily was dead. And now five years, 13 evaluation refusals later, and here we are, right back where we started in the cycle. So Emily was just not a victim of Darren Pronto. She was also a victim of Vermont's system, a system that allowed him to remain in the community despite clear warning signs. Our local agency never once reported his compliance. There was no link with law enforcement for the multiple community calls relating to his violence that they received after his community discharge. Ironically, court stalking orders were issued two weeks after Emily's murder for a couple that had been dealing with this for months before that. His participation in treatment was voluntary and he chose not to participate, and when someone chooses not to participate, the question what do you do? And that's for you to figure out because that's what did you for this right? All of us. Not just those with mental diagnosis, not just those with disabilities, but every Vermonters. And let's be clear what competency is. Competency is a legal opinion about whether someone understands the court process and can assist their defense. It's not a medical diagnosis, it's not a treatment plan, and it's not a strategy. You heard Mr. Bianchi say that Darren Pronto was deemed competent because he had an out of state evaluator who thought he didn't understand the system when he said he was going to be able to go home, when in fact he did understand it because in his prior assaults for attempted murder, he was allowed to go home. So, in Vermont, our mental health strategy is primarily voluntary. As state's attorney Sarah George noted recently in a WCAX report, when multiple charges are dismissed, victims are overlooked. And I don't often agree with her, but she was right about that. When competency proceedings drag on for months or years, like in the case of Kathleen Smith, whose killer was able to stall for nine years before he passed away in a hospital. When evaluations are refused, when individuals cycle between community placements and hearings, the system fails, including the accused. You have heard from DMH and DOC. Both agencies have acknowledged that Vermont lacks a true forensic system of care because treatment alone is not a forensic system. And what we need and what S-one 193 begins to address is a structure that includes monitoring, supervision, programming, and treatment, all integrated with the criminal justice framework. And Vermont currently does not have that. You've heard the Attorney General's Office say that this morning. Yes, we have beds. Yes, we have civil commitment units. We have a secure residential facility in Essex, but we do not have a dedicated forensic system designed to manage individuals found not competent or not guilty by reason of insanity in ways that protect public safety while preserving constitutional rights. And we have seen what happens when those gaps remain. Emily's death is proof of that. The murder in 2025 within one of our community residents up in Chittenden County is proof of that. Those are not abstract policy disagreements. They're consequences. And that's because there is no formal competency or ex duration pro program, no dedicated forensic system of care, and no clear structure for monitoring and supervision once charges are dismissed. And Darren Pronto is a perfect example of that. Vermont is primarily a voluntary state. We practice compassionate sentencing. We are a compassionate voluntary state and many people choose not to participate. So, what do you do? Since I started Voices for Vermont Victims, I've heard from some different people around this state. I heard from a mother who's been struggling for years with her son's mental illness, who goes into the system, he goes into the hospital, he gets released into the community, he is deemed competent to live on his own, but he is not able to live on his own, and he goes back through the same cycle. And unfortunately, the last time he was released, he was only out for thirty four days before he had another incident, and that incident was in New York. And now he is in a New York jail. Honestly, have no idea if their treatment's better than Vermont, but that's not right for him or his family. So, there's another case, woman mentioned me because I know Dale has been talking about putting people who are not competent or not not guilty by reason of insanity in nursing homes. And we recently had a case locally where someone was placed into a local nursing home, and a woman's mother who was a resident there, who herself was a victim of violent sexual assault in her younger days was allowed to be a victim again. This person was able to say lewd and lascivious or don't pronounce that right, comments to her, and he was eventually taken back to jail, but you're creating more victims. In Emily's case, Pronto's custody status changed multiple times over the years prior to her death. Voluntary treatment, involuntary treatment, community placements, periods of instability. The only thing that was consistent was that there was no consistent forensic oversight, no structured accountability system linking mental health and public safety. The result was predictable, it was preventable, and it was unnecessary. And he is currently at Southern State and you heard from Commissioner Interim Department of Corrections Commissioner Murad. He has six people there responsible for creating nine victims. So, are in his care, whether they stay in jail or you put them in another place, that is up to you. WCAX recently covered the accountability court. Senators Hashim and Mattos, I hope I pronounced that right, I saw you and representative Lalanne there. It sounds like a success story, and I commend those involved. But you both heard that there were seven individuals who were found not competent. Their charges were dismissed, but the prosecutor stated that they will likely be back. They will be back. That means more victims. So are we supposed to accept that as normal? Are we supposed to be okay with knowing system anticipates few future harm, collateral damage? I heard that earlier today. Is that what we are? Because victims are not statistics. We are not collateral damage. We are families and survivors. And I also want to address the liberty argument. Of course, liberty matters. Constitutional protector protects matter. Due process matters. But my family's civil civil liberty is there just as much as my daughter's kill my daughter's killer's civil civil liberties. And right now, the system is not balanced. We're not represented in court. You heard Leanne say that. If anyone has experienced deprivation, it's the families whose loved ones have lost their loved ones and then have spent years in legal limbo. So do our civil liberties not matter? Do the rights of victims in everyday Vermonters matter less than the rights of those who commit violent acts? This should not be a binary choice between liberty and safety. A forensic system of care protects both. It ensures that individuals who truly need treatment receive it a structured Oh, in a structured, accountable environment, ensuring that dangerous individuals are not simply pushed out the door as we have seen happen too often in a voluntary model. S 90 S one ninety three isn't a punishment. It's about closing a gap. It's about preventing the next tragedy. It's about ensuring that when someone is found not competent, there is somewhere appropriate, secure, and structured for them to go rather than cycling them through a patchwork of voluntary placements. This committee has the opportunity to move this issue forward in a serious way. House judiciary is expecting this bill to come over in some form. Victims across Vermont are watching. We are not asking for perfection, but we are asking for progress. We are asking for a system that recognizes that public safety and mental health treatment are not opposing forces. They must coexist. S one ninety three is necessary for victims, for families, for the integrity of the system itself. And senator Hashim, I understand your concerns about jail medical services, particularly whether they should be contractor run date run. Accountability is essential in either model. The real question is not who provides the service, but whether proper oversight and due diligence are being exercised to ensure compliance, quality care, and public safety. In some cases, contractors provided may actually bring stronger subject matter expertise and specialization that improves services, provided there is rigorous monitoring, clear performance standards, and enforcement mechanisms. Whether state run or contracted, what matters most is accountability, transparency, and measurable outcomes. The focus should be built on building a system that delivers consistent high quality care while maintaining public trust, not simply on the structure of who signs the paycheck. There seems to be growing concern that being a forensic facility automatically means expanding it or placing it within a traditional jail setting. Commissioner Murad has already stated that it would not be located at the Southern State Correctional Facility, which helps clarify that this is not about building another jail. A forensic psychiatric facility is fundamentally different from a correctional facility. It is a secure treatment environment with clinical oversight designed specifically for individuals involved in the competency or insanity process. It is not just a punitive setting. I've also heard that there may be a vacant building, a vacant public safety building in Chittenden County that content could potentially be evaluated as an option? These are the kinds of logistical and infrastructure questions that properly belong before the House Corrections and Institutions Committee, which has oversight of state facilities and capital planning. And I would also refer you to representative Emmons regarding the Essex facility and renovations that were discussed there last year to turn it into forensic facility. There were changes that did allow Essex to give involuntary medication and use restraints, so that was a step forward. It was also something DMH has been advocating for, for years. So, the focus should remain on designing the right level of secure care, one that balances treatment, supervision, and public safety, and rather than allowing fear of the word jail to derail a serious policy discussion. If someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity or not competent, the state must provide more than voluntary treatment. I've said it before, we need monitoring, supervision, programming, and treatment. We need real forensic care. And you were elected to protect Vermont, all of us. That includes the vulnerable, that includes the accused, but that also includes innocent families like mine who trusted that when warning signs existed, the system would act. Fifty two days after that after Darren Pronto posted the video you saw yesterday, my daughter Emily Hammond was dead, and I will not allow that to be dismissed as unnecessary. So Chair Hashim, I'm asking you directly, please do not let bill be minimized, delayed, or dismissed. Victims across Vermont are watching. We're relying on you. So please ensure our voices are reflected in the discussions this committee takes. Representative Lalonde has stated that House Judiciary is looking forward to seeing S-one Hundred 93 and building on it, and I hope that means adding the ASPS pertaining to victims rights in H-six 27. Thank you for your time. Thank you for allowing me to go over to be heard. And thank you for letting victims have a voice in this process.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you for your testimony. And and just so all of you know, you know, the the rolling invitation for whenever you want to provide input on what, if any changes, continue to get made to this bill. And hope hopefully that I'm sure that applies to the house committee as well when this goes over there.

[Kelly Carroll, Founder, Voices for Vermont Victims]: Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Committee, any questions for Kelly or anybody else on screen? Any general comments on the bill as we I I know we've been talking about it all morning, but anything general? Alright. Great. Well, we've we have this bill on our agenda for a lot of next week as well. So we are going to continue working on it. And thank you again for all of your testimony. Okay. So we

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: are