SB 0692 - Fiscal Note

Fiscal Note - SB 0692 - Compelling Witness Testimony

L.R. NO.  2788-01
BILL NO.  SB 692
SUBJECT:  Compelling Witness Testimony
TYPE:     Original
DATE:     January 30, 1996



                              FISCAL SUMMARY
                    ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS


FUND AFFECTED              FY 1997             FY 1998           FY 1999
General Revenue          ($14,500)           ($17,922)         ($18,460)

Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds              ($14,500)           ($17,922)         ($18,460)

                   ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS


FUND AFFECTED              FY 1997             FY 1998           FY 1999
None

Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds                   $0                  $0                $0

                    ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS


FUND AFFECTED              FY 1996             FY 1997           FY 1998
Local Government                $0                  $0                $0


                              FISCAL ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTION

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume the
proposed legislation may result in some unknown increase in criminal
prosecutions.  CTS officials have no way of knowing how often the
availability of the provision may cause prosecutors to file charges which
would not otherwise have been filed.

Oversight assumes that since the Office of Prosecution Services does not
expect a fiscal impact, there would probably not be a significant increase in
criminal prosecutions for perjury arising from compelled testimony.
Therefore, there should be no significant fiscal impact to CTS.

Officials from the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) assume the
proposed legislation would require additional travel expenses for current
public defenders to handle conflicts in neighboring offices amounting to
approximately $58,000 per full fiscal year.  Further, SPD would have to
reassign conflict cases between co-defendants testifying against each other
to private counsel.  Currently, there are about 350 conflict cases and SPD
expects this number to double.  The cost for reassigning additional cases to
private attorneys would be approximately $175,000 per full fiscal year.

Oversight assumes that if it became necessary to reassign conflict cases to
private attorneys, the workload of the SPD would receive corresponding
savings in staff, equipment and operating expenses.  Further, Oversight
assumes that SPD could expect an increase in travel expenses to represent
indigent clients involved in witness immunity.  SPD estimates a breakdown of
these witness immunity testimony cases of 70% urban/30% rural.  In this
respect, Oversight would assume that additional travel expenses would  be
incurred mostly in rural areas and has reduced SPD's amounts of that
requested to 30%.

Officials from the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of
Administration - Division of Accounting assume this proposal would have no
fiscal impact on their respective budgets.

Officials from the Office of Prosecution Services (OPS) assume the proposed
legislation would not have a fiscal impact on individual prosecutor
caseloads.

Oversight assumes the proposed legislation would not appreciably increase
prosecutors' costs or local incarceration costs  because the immunity
provisions should encourage freedom to testify for co-defendants/witnesses
without fear of serving jail time for any offense they may have  committed
themselves.  Further, the provisions for serving up to one year in jail for
failure to testify under court order should promote substantial compliance.


FISCAL IMPACT - State Government   FY 1997   FY 1998   FY 1999
                                  (10 Mo.)

GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Cost - State Public Defender
   Travel Expenses               ($14,500) ($17,922) $(18,460)

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
GENERAL REVENUE FUND             ($14,500) ($17,922) ($18,460)


FISCAL IMPACT  - Local Government  FY 1997   FY 1998   FY 1999
                                  (10 Mo.)

                                        $0        $0        $0


DESCRIPTION

The proposed legislation would allow the prosecuting attorney to request an
order from the court that would require a witness to testify.  If the order
is issued, the witness would not be able to refuse to testify based on his
privilege against self-incrimination.  No testimony compelled under this
order would be used against the witness in any criminal case unless the
witness commits perjury.

The proposed legislation would allow the prosecuting attorney to request the
order only if the prosecutor believes that testimony from the witness would
be necessary to the public interest and the witness would probably refuse to
testify on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination.

The proposed legislation would make refusal to comply with the court order to
testify a contempt violation and the witness may be held in the county jail
for up to one year.

This  legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other
program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental
space.






SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Office of State Courts Administrator
Office of the State Public Defender
Office of Prosecution Services
Office of the Attorney General
Office of Administration - Division of Accounting