HB1191: relative to court proceedings.

HB 1191-FN - AS INTRODUCED

2003 SESSION

03-2168

09/01

HOUSE BILL 1191-FN

AN ACT relative to court proceedings.

SPONSORS: Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 13; Rep. Goyette, Hills 66; Rep. Gibson, Hills 58; Rep. Artz, Hills 64

COMMITTEE: Judiciary

ANALYSIS

This bill requires that, unless otherwise prohibited or restricted by law, all court proceedings shall be conducted in open court, records of court proceedings shall not be sealed, and court proceedings may be videotaped or audiotaped.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

03-2168

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Three

AN ACT relative to court proceedings.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Chapter; Court Proceedings Open. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 516 the following new chapter:

CHAPTER 516-A

COURT PROCEEDINGS OPEN

516-A:1 Court Proceedings Open. Unless otherwise prohibited or restricted by law:

I. All court proceedings shall be held in open court and judges shall not hold in chambers conferences.

II. Records and files of court proceedings shall not be sealed.

III. Records may be made of any court proceeding by videotape or audiotape.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2005.

LBAO

03-2168

7/25/03

HB 1191-FN - FISCAL NOTE

AN ACT relative to court proceedings.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Judicial Branch stated this bill will have an indeterminable impact on state expenditures in FY 2005 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on county and local expenditures or state, county and local revenues.

METHODOLOGY:

The Judicial Branch states this bill adds RSA chapter 516-A entitled "Court Proceedings Open." This chapter would prohibit in chambers conferences, prohibit sealing records, and would allow records of any court proceeding by videotape or audio-tape. All of this is "[u]nless otherwise prohibited or restricted by law." The portion of this bill with the potential for the greatest fiscal impact is the first section regarding proceedings in open court and the prohibition of in chambers conferences. In chambers conferences are used in all courts. They can be used to discuss settlements or matters that will allow the trial to proceed more efficiently. As such. they can either eliminate the need for a trial or make the trial shorter. The Judicial Branch does not maintain statistics on the number of cases settled in in chambers conferences or how those conferences may affect the trial of cases, therefore, it is impossible to quantify the fiscal impact of in chambers conferences. The cost of a full-days trial, based on a seven and a half-hour day, ranges from $551.93 in the district court to $950.48 in the superior court. The latter number does not include the cost of a jury. If this prohibition on in chambers conferences were enacted, it would not take the addition of too many trial days beyond the number held currently for the fiscal impact of prohibiting in chambers conferences from reaching $10,000. While the exact quantification of the fiscal impact of this prohibition cannot be estimated, it would cost the Judicial Branch well in excess of $10,000 in additional trial time if in chambers conferences were eliminated. One other potential impact of the first section of this bill comes from the section requiring all court proceedings to be held in open court. It is common practice during a jury trial for counsel to approach the bench for discussion with the judge out of the hearing of the jury. If the open proceedings portion of this bill is construed to require such conferences to be heard by all those in attendance at the trial, the jury will have to be excused from the courtroom every time what heretofore has been a bench conference needs to occur, therefor, this provision will dramatically increase the time and expense of jury trials. Again, quantification is

LBAO

03-2168

7/25/03

Page 2

not possible, but given the cost of a jury trial, the fiscal impact to the Judicial Branch of this provision will be well in excess of $10,000. The second portion of this bill prohibits sealing records. Several current statutes require confidentiality of certain court records. Also, in individual cases, judges may order certain material be kept confidential. Presumably, the "[u]nless otherwise prohibited or restricted by law" language in this bill would keep these matters confidential. Thus, there should be no fiscal impact from the second portion of this bill.

The third portion of the bill would allow records of any court proceeding by videotape or audio-tape. The meaning of this provision is unclear. If the meaning is that any individual can make a record of court proceedings by videotape or audio-tape, the result could be a cost to the Judicial Branch resulting from multiple individuals attempting to make a record of court proceedings. Especially in a trial of great public interest, this could be disruptive of the trial process, thereby resulting in a negative fiscal impact due to lengthier trials. If the meaning is that videotape or audio-tape is an acceptable method of taking the official court record, there would be no fiscal impact since the provision so construed would be permissive only. If the meaning is that official court records must be taken by either videotape or audio-tape, the result would be a positive fiscal impact to the Judicial Branch. Most court records are currently taken by audio-tape, however, in the superior court many records are taken by a court stenographer. If the intent of this third portion of the bill is to eliminate stenographic records and to make videotape or audio-tape the only permissible method of taking the official record of court proceedings, there could be a savings to the Judicial Branch. Since the meaning of this provision is unclear, no statement of fiscal impact is made for this third portion of this bill. The Judicial Branch stated the only definitive statement of fiscal impact that can be made regarding this bill is that RSA 516-A, I would have a negative fiscal impact on the Judicial Branch well in excess of $10,000. Any fiscal impact to the Judicial Branch will result in increased delays in the processing of other cases.