Fiscal Note - SB 0338 - Compelling Witness Testimony
L.R. NO. 1154-02
BILL NO. SB 338
SUBJECT: Criminal Procedures: Witnesses
TYPE: Original
DATE: February 18, 1997
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
General Revenue ($24,500) ($30,282) ($31,191)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds ($24,500) ($30,282) ($31,191)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
None
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Local Government $0 $0 $0
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Office of Prosecution Services assume the proposed
legislation would have no fiscal impact on their agency or individual
prosecutor caseloads.
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 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.
Therefore, the proposal should not result in a significant fiscal impact for
CTS.
Officials from the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) assume the
proposal would result in additional conflict cases if witnesses are compelled
to testify against each other. SPD currently assigns approximately 350
conflict cases to private counsel each year. Additionally, SPD internally
reassigns 1,000 cases each year to resolve conflicts. SPD assumes these
numbers would more than double if co-defendants are compelled to testify
against each other. Although this legislation would not create any
additional caseload, SPD assumes that attorneys and investigators would be
required to travel additional miles to handle conflicts arising in continent
public defender offices. Overall, SPD assumes this proposal would result in
the reassignment of an additional 500 cases at a cost of $400 each, for a
total fiscal impact of $200,000 annually.
Oversight assumes that if it became necessary to reassign an increased number
of conflict cases to private attorneys, the workload of the SPD would receive
a corresponding savings in staff, equipment and operating expenses. Based on
SPD's response to a similar proposal last session, Oversight assumes there
could be additional travel expenses in the approximate amount of $58,000 per
year for the current public defenders to handle conflicts in neighboring
offices. Oversight further assumes there could be additional communication
expenses in the amount of approximately $40,000 per full fiscal year for SPD.
Oversight estimates a breakdown of these witness immunity testimony cases
would likely be 70% urban and 30% rural. Oversight assumes that any
additional travel and communication expenses would be mostly incurred in
rural areas and has therefore reduced SPD's travel and communication expenses
to 30% of the amounts previously estimated by SPD.
Officials from the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of
Administration - Division of Accounting, the Missouri Sheriffs' Association,
and the Missouri Police Chiefs' Association assume the proposal would have no
fiscal impact on their agencies.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Cost - State Public Defender (SPD)
Travel Expenses ($14,500) ($17,922) $(18,460)
Communications (10,000) (12,360) (12,731)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
GENERAL REVENUE FUND ($24,500) ($30,282) ($31,191)
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
$0 $0 $0
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of
this proposal.
DESCRIPTION
The proposal would grant transactional immunity to a person who is compelled
to testify over his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
The prosecutor could request a court order to compel testimony if: 1) such
testimony is necessary to the public interest; and 2) the witness refuses or
is likely to refuse to testify on the basis of his Fifth Amendment privilege.
If the court issues such an order and the person refuses to testify, such
person could be held in contempt of court and put in jail for up to one year
or until he testifies or produces the requested evidence. A person who does
testify could not be charged with any act which is the subject of such
testimony.
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 Prosecution Services
Office of State Courts Administrator
Office of the State Public Defender
Office of the Attorney General
Office of Administration - Division of Accounting
Missouri Sheriffs' Association
Missouri Police Chiefs' Association
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.