March 18, 2026 · Judiciary · 27,305 words · 21 speakers · 244 segments
Good afternoon. The Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Today is Wednesday, the 18th of March. Ms. Jensen, please start us off with a roll call.
Senators Benavides. Here.
Carson. Here.
Henrickson. Here.
Wallace. Here.
Zamora Wilson. Present.
Roberts. Here.
Mr. Chair. Here.
All right. Everyone's present.
Thank you.
Just to note our agenda for the record, We have four bills that will go in this order, House Bill 1189, followed by House Bill 1039, followed by Senate Bill 124, and then Senate Bill 111. I am due to present a bill now in the Education Committee, so I'll be turning the gavel over to the Vice Chair to get us through the first part of the hearing.
Okay. So beginning with House Bill 1189, we have Senator Snyder in front of us who just can't get enough of judiciary. He's back. Welcome back.
Thank you. That really means a lot. My time serving on Senate Judiciary was brief but unforgettable.
Of course, yeah.
Okay, well, thank you, committee and Chair Roberts, for hearing this bill. This is kind of unique. Back in 23, Senator Gardner and I carried and got past Senate Bill 100, which was the Uniform Community Property Disposition at Death Act. And then through that process, we heard feedback from the Colorado Bar, the relevant sections, and they had redlined a version and wanted to have some language put into the bill. And we approved that language, but somewhere between that bill going up to the enrollment desk and getting finalized and published, this language was never captured. And so one of our leading practitioners, who was a big part of that process, identified and was asking, well, why is that language that you approved not in the law? And after an exhaustive search, we've determined that nobody's responsible. Nobody could explain how it happened, why the language was left out. So we'll let that water go under the bridge. But what we're bringing today is that language that was meant to originally be included in the 23 bill. And, you know, it basically is dealing just with Section 1520.103, which is the included and excluded property definitions in a community property. So basically what we're saying is it doesn't matter where the person is domiciled at the time of death. It has to do with when the Colorado property was included in part of the community property estate. And it has the things that go with it. the, uh, so, you know, things like the, the right to income, to appreciation, other things with that property. So it really just does what we intend to do all along, which was to make sure that regardless of where one of the spouses may be currently domiciled that not dispositive That does not affect it And it really it just kind of unclear We just want to clear this up and make sure that it pretty very simple and easy to understand
Great.
I would ask for an aye vote.
All right. Thank you. Committee, do we have any questions for Senator Snyder, the bill sponsor?
Senator Benavides. Uh-oh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Snyder. And this isn't a change, but it's just so I'm trying to get familiar with this stuff again. On line seven, it says without regard to how the property is titled or held. So if the property wasn't held jointly, was held individually by one of the spouses, the non-deceased spouse, that's included in community property without regard to how it was held?
Senator Snyder. I don't have an immediate answer to your question. I think the definition of what is included in the community property estate would dictate that question. All we're saying here is if that property rightfully should be part of the community property, the current domicile of one of the spouses out of the state of Colorado won't affect that. But we do have some fine witnesses who might be able to drill down onto that specific answer for you.
Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Senator Benavides, good for now? All right. Members, other opening questions of the sponsor? Seeing none, we'll go to witnesses. All right. Looks like we just have two. Representative McGeehan and Mr. Metz. We'd like to start off.
Ann McGeehan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. I'm Ann McGeehan, and I chair the Colorado Commission on Uniform Laws. Pursuant to SJR 25003, six Colorado Uniform Law Commissioners were appointed for two-year terms. We are part of the Uniform Law Commission, or the ULC. The ULC is a nonprofit formed in 1892 to create nonpartisan state legislation. Over 350 volunteer commissioners work together to research, draft, and promote enactment of uniform state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical, ranging from the Uniform Commercial Code to acts on property, trust states, family law, criminal law, and other areas where uniformity of state law is desirable. ULC members must be lawyers qualified to practice law. They are practicing lawyers, judges, legislators, and legislative staff and law professors who have been appointed by state governments as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The ULC strengthens the federal system by providing rules and procedures that are consistent from state to state, but that also reflect the diverse experience of the states, which is why it's important that we fix this uniform law. The ULC is a working organization. Our process for approving a uniform law includes first a study committee, which recommends whether the topic is appropriate for a uniform law. If so, a drafting committee is formed, which includes a chair and a reporter, who is often a law professor, who is an expert in the topic. In addition to commissioners, the ULC seeks and adds stakeholders with interest and or subject expertise. The drafting committee presents its first draft at the annual meeting, where it is analyzed and fully discussed by the entire ULC during a line reading on the floor Comments are taken and the draft is revised over the next year At the following annual meeting there is a second reading complete with discussion Often revisions are made based on floor comments, and the drafting committee returns once more until there is satisfaction with the draft. At the conclusion of the annual meeting, there is a full vote on the states on each final act. The Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws then considers what acts will be presented to the General Assembly. Our meetings and agendas are posted, and we take public testimony on the acts we are considering. We work with stakeholders to try and resolve concerns, especially as there may be variations required by existing Colorado law. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Mason. There we go. I was losing my mind there for a second.
Good afternoon, Chair. Good afternoon, Senate Judiciary Committee. Thanks for having me today. I am Tyler Mounsey, Director of Legislative Relations for the Colorado Bar Association. For the sake of time, I won't repeat a lot of what Senator Snyder said. We did have our practitioners in the trust and estate section of the Colorado Bar Association. I am a non-attorney, as they like to remind me often, but I do know that several of them did come to me and asked me the very simple question, why wasn't this piece included when it was in the original act? And like she said, we really couldn't figure out why. So we have a really great relationship with the commission, and I appreciate it over the years where we're able to work with them, and they value that input from our members. I think I'm the only bar association that goes to the conference to also meet with the rest of the commissioners, so we're able to have that continued dialogue. So we were all a little confused. Thankfully, the commissioner saw the error of the way and decide to run this bill. The thing that I would just add is that the reason why our practitioners brought it, and with this particular language, it creates clarity. Without it, there's a serious amount of ambiguous nature to the statute that we really need to clear up. And it wasn't just one. We had about 10, 15 that asked me the question. I don't think they were sitting here saying, hey, do we need to run a bill? I think they were saying, why doesn't it exist? But thankfully, we have great relationships. They were saying, hey, we can fix it. So that's our explanation today. We're obviously here in support, available for questions. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Mics are off today. Committee, questions for either witness?
Senator Benavides. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll restate my question, and it's on line six and seven. It says the following property of a community property spouse without regard to how the property is titled or held. and I know it's been many, many years since I went to law school, but because we're not a community property state, community property of an estate is determined to be property that's shared jointly, but that an individual spouse could say inherit property and it could be titled only in their name, never made part of the marriage, never used as part of the marriage or anything else, and so that doesn't make it community property. And this doesn't refer to the following property of a community property estate where a determination was already made. It's just of a community property spouse. So that's my question when it doesn't have any regard to how the title is held. Who would like that one?
Thank you, Senator. It's very nice to be able to call you that. I going to take the first stab at it although here the trust and state lawyer I should probably let him answer First of all the two lines that you referring to are already in Colorado statute And adding this amendment clarifies what the community property refers to and defines it better by talking about how and where and when the property was acquired is to be considered community property. And frankly, that's why we need the amendment, because without it, it creates confusion as to what it is.
Senator Benavides. Thank you for that response. And I understand the purpose of the amendment, and I support the amendment to clarify that. I'm pointing this out, so since you all are the uniform law people and are working on this statute, you may want to take it back to someone, because I don't think that prefatory part is very clear in what it's talking about.
Senator Snyder. Well, not to get too into the weeds, but if you go a little further to 1520.104, forms of partition reclassification 105 tells us there's a community property presumption. So when there's a question about whether it would be community property or not, it's presumed to be. but it's a rebuttable presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. Senator Benavides, good for now?
All right, members, any other questions for our witnesses? Seeing none, thank you both for being here. Last call for any other witnesses on 1189. Confirming nobody online? All right, we'll close the witness phase. Any amendments?
Senator Snyder? No, Mr. Chair.
Committee, amendments to 1189. Seeing none, we'll close the amendment phase. Wrap up comments.
Senator Snyder. Well, as I said, this is really just a cleanup. This should have been a part of the bill back in 23. It has created a little bit of ambiguity about property located, real property located in Colorado. This clears up that ambiguity. Very simple. So thank you very much and ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Committee, any closing comments? Seeing none, the routing is to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1189 to the Committee of the Whole. Very good. Ms. Jensen.
Senators Benavides.
Yes. Carson. Yes.
Henriksen. Aye. Wallace. Aye. Zamora Wilson.
Aye. Roberts.
Aye. Mr. Chair.
Yes. The vote is 7-0 to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Vice Chair for another motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If there's no objection, I would suggest this be placed on the consent calendar.
Members, seeing no objection, we'll put 1189 on consent. Congrats, Senator Snyder.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee.
All right. Next item on our agenda is 1039, which I'm co-presenting with Senator Judah. Therefore, Mr. Vice Chair will preside over this part of the hearing. Thank you.
Thank you. All right. We are going to hear now House Bill 1039 by Senators Judah and Weissman, who would like to start us off. Senator Judah.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. So House Bill 1039 is really on the heels of a few bills that passed in the last few years related to jail data collection, including House Bill 19-1297, House Bill 22-1208, and the Jail Standards Bill, House Bill 22-1063. All three were bipartisan bills and received affirmative support from both sides of the aisle through House Bill 22-1063, only in the Senate. In all three bills, Aurora City Jails were left out as a stand-alone jail being operated by a municipality rather than a county jail or a city and county jail. The oversight creates an inequity that county jails across the state must meet statutory requirements while city jail is effectively exempt. The bill would correct that oversight. So I just want to give a quick overview of the bill. It makes modest changes to align jails operated by municipalities with the statewide standards that govern county jails. It applies to individuals both pre- and post-conviction. Currently, because municipal jails are not required to comply with these standards, someone held in a city's jail could receive unequal treatment to those held in a city's home county jail just down the road. This bill also requires municipal jails to collect and publish the same data as county jails, which help hold municipal jails accountable. The bill protects the rights of pregnant people held in municipal jails just as they are in county jails, including minimizes the use of restraints. And then finally, the bill is intended to cover the Aurora detention facility, but also future municipal jail facilities that follow that model. Senator Weissman. Thank you. Committee, not a ton to add. Going back a number of years now, this legislature has been doing work to try to level up just what happens in our county jails. They're necessary parts of our system. We don't have a ton right now, but there is such a thing as a city jail, and the prior drafting has simply not captured the facility in our city, nor would it capture any other municipality that chose to begin to operate a jail. So to fill that gap is really what 1039 was introduced to do. There was significant work done in the House to bash out some concerns that arose out of the introduced form of the drafting That the gray shade you see in the re in front of you In relevant part we removed a time parameter limitation of 72 hours We tried to clarify definitions. Best we know now, and you'll hear from witnesses in a moment, there's no remaining opposition. We believe that we've addressed that and very grateful for everybody who engaged in really earnest, detailed negotiations about the policy in the other chamber. I guess with that, we'll stop and see if there are questions.
Thank you. Sponsors? Committee, are there any questions? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to the witness testimony phase. I think we have five people signed up, so we're one chair down, but we'll call everybody in favor first. I think everybody here is in person. Arianne Frosch, Shan Lagarde, Eric Olson, Dana Steiner.
Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for being here.
Whoever would like to start, please go ahead, introduce yourself, and then you can begin your testimony.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Ariane Frosh, and I am policy counsel at the ACLU of Colorado. We are proud to bring HB 261039 before you today, as this bill is an important step to make sure that all incarcerated people in Colorado receive equal treatment regardless of where they are held. Several years ago, Colorado passed legislation to require county jails to follow basic safety standards and collect and report on key data regarding jail populations. Together, they create a scheme of equitable treatment and transparency across jurisdictions that ensures that Coloradans held behind bars maintain their constitutional rights. These bills did not, however, cover municipal jails, which could lead to arbitrary and unequal treatment of incarcerated people based on where they are held. HB 261039 closes that loophole and seeks uniformity for all those in jail. The bill also protects the right of pregnant people who are detained, including minimizing the use of restraints. Additionally, a municipal jail may only hold a pregnant person who is in active labor if the jail is not able to safely transport them to an appropriate health care facility. HB 261039 is an important protection for those held in jail throughout Colorado, and I urge your yes vote. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
Thank you. Please go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Shan Lagarde. My pronouns are they, them, and I am the Black Reproductive Justice Advocate for Soul to Soul Sisters, a racial justice organization grounded in a reproductive justice framework focused on ending anti-black racism in Colorado. I am testifying on behalf of Soul to Soul Sisters in support of House Bill 1039. Adding municipal jails to oversight requirements ensures that incarcerated birthing people can labor, deliver, and recover in humane and supportive environments. The treatment of the pregnant person and their child greatly impacts the delivery process and creates barriers that would not have otherwise existed, especially if the pregnant person is restrained. First, one barrier is that medical care becomes harder to access for the birthing person and their child Restraints on a person in labor means that they cannot easily change or rotate between various birthing positions which impacts their safety and ability to progress throughout their birth. It also exposes the birthing person to a higher risk of rising cortisol levels and lowering oxytocin levels. The use of restraints also interferes with medical providers' ability to assist throughout labor and delivery, including responding to emergency medical needs in a timely manner. Secondly, the use of restraints is unnecessary as a person in labor does not pose a serious threat to themselves or those around them If a situation were to arise, jail staff tend to be present in the delivery room and are capable of ensuring the safety of everyone Additionally, the majority of pregnant people who are incarcerated are incarcerated for non-violent offenses Lastly, bringing a child into this world is meant to be an exciting time Colorado has been a frontrunner at making this reality possible for parents and expecting parents who are incarcerated are included in that. House Bill 1039 will help Colorado continue to protect that reality for all parents. Please vote yes on House Bill 1039. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Steiner.
Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, members of the committee. I'm Dana Steiner, Policy Counsel for Colorado Freedom Fund, and I'm testifying in support of HB 1039. As part of our policy work, our organization monitors municipal courts by watching proceedings, searching through jail rosters, and making data requests when necessary. But Colorado has an unintentional gap in jail standards and transparency requirements that one municipal jail is falling through. This bill reasonably fills that gap and applies bare minimum transparency and reporting requirements for government actors that detain and incarcerate people in our state, helping us to see a fuller picture of incarceration in Colorado. The unintentional missing piece that I mentioned is Aurora's Municipal Jail. We've heard that approximately 60 people are in custody there on a daily basis, which means that it incarcerates more than 20 of Colorado's county jails, which is actually more than half of Colorado's county jails. With a bed capacity of 220, it actually has the potential to become Colorado's 13th largest jail. So the reasonable data requirements of this bill are required of every other jail in the state already, no matter their capacity or how many people they are currently detaining. Even Baca, Crowley, and Pitkin counties, where they regularly detain less than five people and have less than 30 beds at the county jail, these reporting requirements have been in place for about five years. So HB 1039 is a common sense measure. Whether a municipality or county is holding someone in custody, Jails should not become black holes where no one knows who is held there or what charges they're held on. Transparency is a tool for accountability, and HB 1039 recognizes that when someone is detained in Colorado, transparency is called for whether they're detained in county jail or a municipal one. We ask for a yes vote.
Thank you. Mr. Olson.
Hi, I'm Eric Olson. I live in Aurora. I am also employed by the Colorado Department of Corrections but I am not speaking on behalf of my employer but to respect everybody's time ditto on everything that they've said I just don't understand why this requirement hasn't existed previously Thank you
Committee, any questions for any of the panelists? Alright seeing none thank you all so much for your testimony this afternoon And then our last person signed up was Owen Brigner He was in a neutral position. Good afternoon. Can I start? Yes, please go ahead.
Thanks, Mr. Vice Chair. My name is Owen Brigner, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and the 99% of Colorado cities and towns that we represent testifying in a neutral position. I'll be very brief in saying that CML wants to acknowledge on the record that the ACLU, the Colorado Freedom Fund, CML, and its members sat at a table together in agreement on something, which was a lot of fun. I'm starting to think the C in CML actually stands for collaborative. I want to thank all of them for the impressive and intentional work done on this bill, for hearing CML and our members out. for staying at the table when things got hard and for getting this done. Notably, from CML's perspective, the amendments to the bill have made it better. The introduced language placing a maximum holding time of 72 hours was confusing and risked prohibiting municipalities from sentencing defendants to jail for longer than three days, which even after the camp and Simon's decisions, municipalities retained sentencing authority for longer than that, and that 72-hour language was removed, which CML appreciates. Additionally, a definition that all stakeholders worked really hard at, which I think we had the most fun doing on this, was agreed upon and inserted into the bill. This agreed upon definition of a municipal jail ensures that temporary holding cells at police stations and courthouses and court facilities were not implicated. And finally, CMO also wants to say that one piece we are very proud of is the addition of a non-voting municipal representative on the Jail Standards Advisory Committee, which will provide a municipal perspective that is not currently present. Thanks, Mr. Vice Chair, and happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Committee, any questions for Mr. Brigner? Okay, seeing none. Last call for witnesses on House Bill 1039. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Amendment phase, bill sponsors, do you have any amendments?
We do not, sir.
Okay, any from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. sponsors, any wrap-up comments? Mr. Senator
Judah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, my co-prime and I obviously jumped on this bill because we represent Aurora, and we want to make sure that folks in our jails feel safe and that they are compliant with what we hold all jails and county jails in accordance to. So I will keep it simple and kindly ask for an aye vote. Senator Weissman. Thank you. And, you know, to Mr. Olson's comment, you know, why didn't we include from the get-go? I mean, we, almost all of us live in a county with a jail. There are a few that don't operate one. But we think about those over years. We have tried to solve the problem in front of us. And then we cleared that up and we have a good system for talking about jail standards and implementing those. And then we realize, we missed something. Enter this bill. I've been thinking this year we call it a legislative process for a reason. The process is bumpy sometimes. It has to work. Concerning Mr. Olson's comment, I think the process of leveling all jails up began years ago, includes this bill, and getting to this point with a brief testimony you've just heard was certainly reflective of some rigorous and I think at times for multiple parties, frustrating processes as far as negotiating amendments in the House. But as second chamber sponsors, we are very grateful that it all sorted out and that we are where we are today. So we ask the committee's support to keep moving onward and level up municipal jails to where county jails have been.
Okay, Senator Weissman, the motion is yours to the Committee of the Whole. Thank you.
I move 1039 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
Any closing comments from the Committee before we vote? Seeing none, Ms. Jensen, please poll the Committee.
Senators Benavides?
Yes. Carson?
No. Henriksen?
Yes. Wallace?
Aye. Zamora Wilson?
No. Weissman.
Yes. Mr. Chair.
Aye.
That passes 5 to 2.
Thank you. All right, we'll give Senator Wallace just a moment to get situated at the table and let us know her intentions about SB 124. Senator, when you're ready.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members. Yeah, I will just dive right in. You know, the thought behind this bill is that hurt people hurt people, and that's the tragic cycle of interpersonal violence. The Survivor Justice Act, Senate Bill 124, was about ensuring that the state is not inflicting its own harm and trauma within that cycle. And to be very clear, that's what our carceral system has been doing for at a minimum decades, if not for its entire history. Our criminal legal system punishes survivors while failing time and again to protect them in the first place. It doesn't believe women, it continues the cycle of stripping them of power and control to force them into its own standards, and then it finds ways to criminalize them. As we should all know, this disproportionately impacts women of color and poor women and all those survivors already marginalized by our society. And in the midst of an ongoing structural state budget crisis that we have yet to find our way out of, we as taxpayers are paying exorbitant amounts to in-prison people, including those who are abused into committing their crimes. As far as I've heard in conversation on this bill, the system doesn't want to change that approach. What a shocking lack of policy innovation and imagination that has brought us to and then left us in this place. What a sorrowful day for justice when all it can ever be is an unscrupulous punishment, punishment whose impact is imprecise, so imprecise, in fact, it implicates even those it was meant to protect This isn justice and I don want to be part of a system or a state inflicting that harm while failing to make any of us safer That's why I took up this bill. As we know, however, in this building, good bills and particularly complex transformational bills frequently take time, and that can mean continued conversations over more than one session. And given that, I believe you are getting a strike-below amendment that I will offer today that will move the bill to a simple technical fix. I appreciate everyone that put work into this effort from both sides. And in particular, I appreciate the folks in our carceral system, including legislation inside, for sharing their experiences. I think too frequently, especially on this committee when we're talking about incarcerated populations, we are talking about rather than with the populations that we are writing legislation around. And I would like to see us correct that moving forward, as well as look forward to continuing this conversation. But for today, as I mentioned in the amendment phase, I will be offering L-001, a technical change to a previous statute. Some of Colorado's victim notification services worked last year on House Bill 25-1098 to create an automated notification system for protection order violations. They believed at the time that CBI had all the information that would be needed to build that notification system. But what they have found as they work to do so is that CBI, in fact, does not have all of the data needed. And so through additional communication with both judicial and CBI, they believe that adding in the Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System to that statute will be helpful to completing the system. So the forthcoming amendment will ensure that CICJIS can provide information along with CBI. And with that, I thank the committee for the consideration. Thank you.
Members, seeing the strike below, hearing the sponsor's intent, we'll open up for questions revolving around L1. seeing none Senator there were some witnesses signed up we should hear from them don't know if they're going to speak to the introduced or the strike below but we'll call all the names that we have everybody's indicated being online can we please promote to the Zoom Catherine Williams Hilary Eisenman and David Frost and was there anyone in the room who wanted to speak to 124 who's not had a chance to sign up. Please come up. Tell you what, ma'am, why don't you start while we are sorting out the Zoom. Let us know your name and affiliation, if any,
and please proceed. Hello, Chair and committee members. My name is Andrea Bradbury, and I am here testifying on my own behalf and in my own capacity. And I actually wasn't planning on talking about this bill, but after hearing, I'm so grateful that Senator Wallace chose to jump on this bandwagon. There's only a couple of states that have a bill like this, and it's so needed. in 30 years in victim services. I've seen so many spouses and children who are terrorized in abusive relationships but they scared to do anything They scared to leave They coerced into doing things that they wouldn normally do And some of the data from like Oklahoma and New York and I believe Illinois, it is just earth-shattering. You see that a woman who is being chased by her abuser wrecks her car, one of her kids dies, she gets laced from prison. Somebody who is made to sleep next to a 9mm is obviously going to make different choices than somebody who feels safe and protected. And time and time again, we've gotten better over the years, but I mean in the mid-80s and early 90s, why didn't you just call the police? Well, we did call the police repeatedly, and they didn't do anything. And again, we're getting so much better. And I'm so grateful that I live in a county that I know that the response is quick. But that isn't the case in all of the state, and I think it really bears a huge, huge resemblance to we need to protect people, and maybe we aren't doing the best job in some areas. But if we did fall behind and somebody who's already served 15 years for a crime that they wouldn't normally committed had they have not been in an abusive relationship, I think it's something that we need to look at and try to help them. And then going forward, for those new people that are committing crimes, I think the totality of the circumstance in any case is really important when we're deciding what the punishment should be. and because I wasn't planning on talking. I will yield the rest of my time, but I want to thank Senator Wallace for bringing this forward.
Okay, thank you. Catherine Williams, if you can hear us, feel free to activate your camera. Please go ahead. Ms. Williams, your turn to testify if you're able to hear us in the room. okay looks like there may be a connection issue or she's not able to hear us um all right one last call for anybody in the room confirming there was nobody else on the zoom wait all right here we go all right ma'am please go ahead i see your hand icon please check the sound on your end we're not quite hearing you in the room ma'am you may have a sound input issue on your end I don't know if you need to use a different microphone or something but we're not hearing you Okay. Ms. Williams, we are not able to hear you. I will just note for our sort of audio record that you did sign up on this bill and that you are indicating a supportive position. Okay. Members, seeing no other witnesses that we're able to connect with and hear from, I think we'll have to close the witness phase. All right. Committee, everyone has L1. This is a strike below. It was distributed yesterday in the late a hours both paper copy to our desks and by email so it complies with a 24 requirement Senator Wallace Thank you Mr Chair
I move L-001 to Senate Bill 124 and ask for an aye vote.
All right. Thank you. Members, any further questions or discussion on L-1 to 124? Seeing none, any objection to the adoption of L-1? Seeing objection, L1 is adopted. Senator Wallace, I'll ask if further amendments.
No.
Committee, any further amendments on the strike below? Seeing none, we'll close the amendment phase. Senator Wallace, any concluding comments?
No, sir.
All right. I'll just say I appreciate our conversations about the introduced bill and more broadly the subject. I think the unfortunate reality that sometimes the system does get the wrong person, and we heard a little bit about that from the witness. You swung for the fence on the introduced. You're trying something very big and very different, but not literally unprecedented. We overuse that word sometimes because I have seen similar efforts in other states and have actually talked with a state legislator who was behind one of them in another state. And the big ideas and the big changes do take years. In the meantime, appreciate your using the fact of a broad title to solve a different problem, but nonetheless one worth solving and one that I hope will help protect those who need some protecting. So thank you for that, and certainly supporting. Now, notwithstanding the strike below, Senator, unfortunately in the absence of a fiscal memo, we are largely bound to follow the original routing. So the motion would be to appropriations. When the fiscal note catches up, I'm hard-pressed to imagine there's going to be any, so hopefully we can get you out of appropriations pretty soon. But that should be the motion for now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move Senate Bill 124 to the Committee on Appropriations as amended with a favorable recommendation.
All right. Thank you.
Ms. Jensen, please call the roll. Senators Benavides.
Yes.
Carson.
No.
Hendrickson.
Excused.
Wallace.
Aye.
Zamora Wilson.
No.
Roberts.
Aye. Mr. Chair. Yes. All right. The vote is supported to one excuse to appropriations. Thank you, Senator. All right. I think we need to be in a brief recess so that we can retrieve Senator Rich for one. Oh, here she is. All right. Senator, perfect timing. We're ready for you. Take a moment to get situated. When you're ready, please make any opening comments you'd like about SB 111. Sure, handouts are fair game. We'll get them around. Thank you. All right. Senator Rich, Ms. Jensen is handing around your packets. In the meantime, feel free to dive in with your opening comments. Are you ready? Yeah, please go ahead.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Judiciary Committee. Today, I bring you Senate Bill 26111. I believe there are many people who understand firsthand the fear, the powerlessness, and the lasting words that abuse inflicts on a child. And it is wrong if these children believe that the world may not protect them. Under the current law, while unconscionable, it is possible for a sex offender who has committed a Class 4 felony to be sentenced to probation. This bill does a very important thing. It would prohibit a court from sentencing a sex offender of the following to probation. Class IV sexual assault of a child. Class IV felony sexual assault of a child by one in a position of trust. Class III felony sexual assault of a child by one in a position of trust when the child is under 15 years of age. What do we teach our children when someone violates their body, their voice, their very identity? When someone they should have been able to trust, Maybe even a family member rapes them. And after summoning the unimaginable courage to speak up, to tell an adult to step into the light, they watch their abuser walk away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile, these children live with those consequences every single day. And those consequences are profound. The weight of this trauma does not fade when the court proceedings end. It lingers in the nightmares that steal their sleep, in the anxiety that can suddenly grip them, in the battles with PTSD that they do not yet have the words to describe. It can alter the course of their lives. We also know that childhood sexual assault is a pipeline into juvenile justice system and eventually prison. It can set a path they should never have to walk. I would argue that sexually assaulting a child is among the worst of all crimes. Unlike other offenses, rape is not just an act that happens in a moment. It is an act that leaves invisible but devastating scars. It is a crime that steals a sense of safety that erodes trust in others, that buries its pain deep in the survivor's bones. and yet these children are expected to endure, to move forward while the world moves on, and the perpetrator is back to business as usual. The Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act of 1998 mandates an indefinite lifelong supervision of people who are convicted of Class II, III, and IV sex offense felonies. Sentencing can range from a minimum of 10 years for a Class III felony and a minimum of 20 years for Class II and III felonies. Intensive supervision probation is required for all lifetime probationers until further order of the court. I believe this bill is significant because allowing sex offenders to be placed on probation can create opportunities for them to reoffend As legislators I believe we have a duty not just to pass laws but to uphold justice to ensure that our legal system does not re-traumatize survivors, to make sure that our statutes reflect a modern understanding of trauma and consent. Protecting children is a critical responsibility of the judicial system. and appropriate penalties must be imposed on offenders. Thank you for allowing me to speak about this bill and why I believe it is important, and I'm hopeful you'll consider moving it forward. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. Members, questions for the sponsor? All right. Seeing none. Senator, we're closing in on 40 witnesses. Therefore, we'll do our standard kind of large number of witnesses protocols. So we'll take testimony for two minutes. Commonly panels of four need to alternate positions so no one side is left waiting too long. You may tell the committee from what position you'd like us to hear first, though.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are three from the El Paso County Sheriff's Office that need to go first. Sure. And it is Bethany Gibson, Katie Otto, and Edwin Wilson. It will be up to your discretion on how you want to handle the rest of them. Sure. Thank you. Please come up. I understand you have a time constraint and a drive. I will try to call folks who indicated in person, whether you're for or against, just so that folks can be on their way if they would like to be after testifying, and then we'll get to folks who are remote. Okay. Indicating supportive and in person, do we have Ronnie Durrell as well? Okay, sir. Please join this panel. and we'll start at this end and then we'll move down the line please go ahead oh and I should note when you're speaking please use the gray button halfway up the black stem of the microphone green light will indicate that it's on and then on the timer box green means go yellow means 30 seconds red means up please conclude good afternoon
and thank you Chairman Wiseman Vice Chairman Roberts, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
My name is Lieutenant Katie Otto. I serve in the Special Victims Unit with the El Paso County Sheriff's Office, and I'm here today in support of this bill to strengthen accountability for those who commit sexual offenses against children. This bill addresses a serious and deeply troubling gap in our criminal justice system. Under current Colorado law, individuals convicted of certain sexual assault crimes against children can still be sentenced to probation, even for offenses that involve abuse of trust for very young victims. SB 26111 corrects that gap by requiring incarceration for some of the most severe offenses, including Class 3 and Class 4 felony sexual assault on a child, especially when the perpetrator is in a position of trust and the victim is under the age of 15. At its core, this bill is about accountability and protection. Children are amongst the most vulnerable members of our communities. When someone is in a position of trust that violates that relationship, the harm is not only physical, it is lifelong, emotional, and deeply traumatic. The justice system must reflect the seriousness of that harm. Allowing probation in these cases sends the wrong message to survivors to families and to our communities It suggests that these crimes can be treated with leniency even when they involve profound violations of trust and safety It also places offenders back in the community sometimes in close proximity to their victims and among other vulnerable individuals, increasing the risk of further harm. SB 26111 makes clear that Colorado will not tolerate that. By ensuring mandatory incarceration for these specific offenses, this bill does three important things. First, it affirms that child sex assault, especially by trusted individuals, is among the most serious crimes we face. Second, it promotes consistency in sentencing so that serious crimes receive appropriate serious consequences. And third, it helps restore confidence in the justice system for survivors and their families who deserve to know that the law stands firmly on their side. This is not about removing the judicial discretion. It's about drawing a line clearly in the sand where harm is the greatest and the need for accountability is undeniable. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to support Senate Bill 26111. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you, sir. Please go ahead.
Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman Wiseman, Vice Chairman Roberts, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Sergeant Edwin Wilson, and I serve in the Special Victims Unit with the El Paso County Sheriff's Office, where I investigate crimes against vulnerable children, and I am here today in support of this bill to strengthen accountability for those who commit sexual offense against children. I want to briefly address an issue that often comes up in this discussion, like recidivism. Research from the U.S. Department of Justice's smart office shows that measuring reoffending in sexual assault cases is inherently difficult because these crimes are significantly underreported. That means that true rate of reoffending is likely higher than what official data reflects, even though the data shows that risk persists and increases over time, with recidivism rates rising substantially over long tracking periods. And in practice, we often see that individuals who are placed on probation for sexual offenses do reoffend, sometimes while still under supervision. When we allow probation for serious sexual assault crimes against children, we are placing offenders back in the community, sometimes in proximity to their victims and among other vulnerable children. Those of us in law enforcement see firsthand the devastating impact child predators have on victims, families, and entire communities. These crimes leave deep and lasting trauma. For many victims, the harm does not end when the crime ends. It follows them for years, sometimes for a lifetime. Quite frankly, no punishment can ever truly serve enough to undergo the damaged cause when someone preys on a child, but our responsibility as a justice system is to ensure that the law responds with seriousness, accountability, and protection for the public. Senate Bill 26111 helps us move closer to that goal. By strengthening the consequences for those who commit sexual offenses against children, this bill increases justice for victims and helps ensure the dangerous offenders are held properly accountable. Equally important, it reinforces public safety. When individuals who prey on vulnerable children face meaningful consequences, it protects other potential victims, and it sends a clear message that these crimes will not be tolerated in our communities. For those of us who work these cases and see lasting impacts on victims, legislation like this matters. It shows victims and their families that the system recognizes the seriousness of these crimes and is committed to holding offenders accountable. For these reasons I respectfully urge the committee to support Senate Bill 26111 Thank you for your time and considerations and I happy to answer any questions you may have Thank you ma Please go ahead Good afternoon Thank you Chairman Weissman Vice Chairman Roberts and members of the
Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Detective Bethany Gibson, and I serve in the Special Victims Unit with the El Paso County Sheriff's Office. I am here today in support of Senate Bill 26-111, Protections Against Child Rape. Child sexual abuse is one of the most devastating crimes we can encounter in law enforcement. It causes deep and lasting harm emotionally, psychologically, and often physically. Many survivors carry that trauma for a lifetime, affecting their mental health, relationships, and sense of safety. Because of this profound impact, our response as a society must reflect the seriousness of these crimes. First, stronger consequences help deter future offenses. While no law can eliminate crime entirely, clear and consistent penalties send a message that these acts will not be tolerated. Second, stronger consequences protect our communities. Individuals who commit sexual crimes against children often demonstrate patterns of behavior, ensuring robust sentencing, monitoring, and rehabilitation reduces the risk of reoffending and helps prevent future victims. Third, stronger consequences affirm the value of victims. For many survivors, justice is about acknowledgement, knowing that what happened to them was serious, harmful, and wrong. When consequences are too lenient, it can deepen their trauma and make them feel invisible. Appropriate penalties validate their experiences and reinforce that their voices matter. Behind every case is a child whose sense of safety and trust has been taken. Many survivors live with anxiety, depression, and isolation for years, even decades. Justice cannot erase that trauma, but it can support healing and assure accountability. This issue is not abstract. It is about real children, real victims, and lasting impact these crimes have on their lives. I stand before you not just as a detective, but as someone who has spent years looking into the darkest corners of human behavior, places most people are fortunate enough to never see. I've walked into rooms where childhood and innocence were taken away in an instant. I've sat across from kids who should be worried about school, friends, and dreams for the future, but instead are trying to find words to describe something no child should ever have to understand, let alone endure. And it's why accountability matters. Stronger penalties for sex offenders is not about vengeance. It is about protection. In my experience, when consequences are firm, consistent, and meaningful, they do three critical things. They remove dangerous individuals from situations where they could harm again. They send a clear message that these crimes will not be tolerated. and they can deter those who might otherwise offend. I respectfully ask for your support for Senate Bill 26-111.
All right. Thank you, sir. Please go ahead.
Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Ronnie Durrell, and I serve as a commander with the Douglas County Sheriff's Office. I'm here today to support Senate Bill 26-111. Crimes involving the sexual assault on a child are among the most devastating offenses law enforcement encounters. While many crimes have consequences, sexual assault on a child often leaves lifelong scars and victims carry well into adulthood. Children who experience this type of trauma frequently struggle with depression, anxiety, trust issues, and a lot of stress. long-term emotional and psychological harm. Many survivors spend years in counseling and treatment attempting to process what happened to them. The reality is that for many victims, the trauma does not simply fade with time. It becomes something they learn to live with for the rest of their lives. In many cases, the offender is somebody the child trusted, a family member, a caregiver, coach, or another adult placed in a position of authority and responsibility. When that trust is violated, the damage extends far beyond the criminal act itself. It shatters a child's sense of safety and can fundamentally change how they view relationships and the world around them. Under current law, individuals convicted of certain Class III and Class IV felony sexual assault defenses against children may still be eligible for probation. For victims who carry this trauma of these crimes for a lifetime, probation can feel like the harm they endured is not fully recognized by the justice system. This legislation sends a clear message that Colorado prioritizes the safety of children, the protection of victims. It ensures that sentencing reflects the seriousness of these crimes and helps reinforce public confidence in our justice system. For victims, accountability matters. It sends a message that what happened to them is taken seriously and their trauma is is recognized. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the committee to support Senate Bill 26-111. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Now, committee, are there questions for any of our witnesses? Senator Carson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Officer Guerrero. It's hard to understand what the thinking is in these offenses where someone is getting probation. You've sat through a lot of these, I assume, all the way through the court proceedings and on. What is the thinking going on here that someone who commits a crime like this, that we need to have a bill like this?
Commander. Thank you for the question, Senator. From my experience, these offenders minimize the act in which that they had committed. They justify it to themselves, and I've seen sentencing of probation, and although I don't agree with it, it's not my decision. The explanation that I've received on many cases was that they believe the offender won't make it through the probation status in which they would eventually get sentenced. To me, that's unacceptable, because if they do make it through probation, then they're free. And while they're on probation, they still have access to the public and those vulnerable populations to reoffend. And from my experience, that happens frequently.
Members, other questions?
Just to follow up to that, I'm not sure I understand. So the thinking is they won't make it through probation, meaning they'll offend again?
Commander? When they're in probation, the things that they have to comply with, I've seen sentencings on some pretty heinous acts, and they had been sentenced to 10 years probation. And the explanation that we got was that the courts did not feel that they would comply with the probation for the entire 10 years, that at some point they will slip up at which point then they would hold that sentencing that they had over their head then they would enact that sentencing i don agree with that i think when an offender is sentenced to probation that victim is scarred for the rest of their life And it sends that justice was not served
for that victim, for that child. Members, other questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you for testifying with us. All right. We'll switch positions. The next panel will be folks who signed up indicating opposition. Again, I'm going to try to call people who are in person and then go online.
Do we have Rob Sanchez?
Please come up.
Jessica Williams-Barez.
Augustine
Garcia.
Okay. Yeah, we'll do final call. Nobody will lose their chance. Sarah Krug. Julia Stencil. All right. Well, Ms. Kepros, now we're to you on the list.
Luke McConnell.
Okay, I think we have four.
All right.
While our other folks are getting situated, sir, we'll start with you. Please go ahead. A little gray button halfway up the stem of the microphone.
How about now? All right. Members of the committee, my name is Rob Sanchez, speaking in opposition to SB 26111. I'm a Lafayette resident, a husband of 24 years, a father of four, and a Class 4 felony sex offender on probation. This bill determines whether you trust the judges, prosecutors, and defenders appointed to these cases, or if you intend to replace their judgment with yours. I began offending as a child and continued into my early adulthood. My offense was reported decades later. I was arrested at age 39. In the years between, I sought mental health treatment on my own, then built a life, marriage, and family. I pled guilty to my crime, and I take full accountability for my offenses. At my sentencing, the judge had every fact. So did the prosecutor who recommended probation. The now adult victim, the person this bill claims to protect, asked the court not to incarcerate me because my children needed me. The judge exercised discretion and agreed. That is not a failure of the system. That is the system doing exactly what you already built it to do. Today, six years into my probation sentence of 10 to life, I have never re-offended and have never violated probation. Sex offense probation is the most intense and structured supervision possible outside of a correctional facility. I completed four years of offense-specific treatment, and I also now speak to sex offenders at new probation or orientations at the invitation of probation staff.
Some of my children have disabilities. Some are LGBTQ. They needed their father present, providing, and advocating for them during the hardest years of their lives. They had it because a judge was allowed to look at the full human picture. Under this bill, my children would have paid the price as secondary victims for a crime committed long before they were born when their father was a troubled teenage sex offender in need of rehabilitation. This well-intended bill brings unintended consequences. It ties the hands of every judge in Colorado saying that their judicial wisdom is irrelevant. It sidelines the recommendations of prosecutors and tell victims that their voices don't count if they ask for something other than incarceration. And it turns the children of all class 4 offenders into collateral damage while calling it protection. I am not asking you to go easy on sex offenders. I am asking you to trust the judges, prosecutors, and defenders to do their jobs. The current system with judicial discretion intact produced me treated compliant mentoring others raising my kids and never re So what outcome exactly is this bill trying to improve upon I ask you to vote no Thank you All right sir Thank you Please go ahead. We'll just go down the line. Good afternoon. We live in a nation where the criminal justice system... Sir, I'm sorry. If you'll just state your name and affiliation for the... Augustine Garcia, Chairperson of Southern Colorado Association for Restorative Justice. We live in a nation where the criminal justice system does not function as a neutral arbiter of truth. It functions as a mechanism of coercion. By your own standards, 98 to 99 percent of those accused will never see a jury of their peers. They will accept a plea bargain, not because they are guilty, not because they had a fair opportunity to defend themselves, but because the system you have built leaves them no choice. They are trapped by laws crafted in rooms like this, laws that are so disproportionately punitive they effectively target those without generational wealth without fame without social capital for the marginalized the constitutional right to a jury trial is fiction the risk of a life destroying sentence is so overwhelming that a plea becomes not a choice but a survival strategy this is not justice this is coercion disguised as due process and yet this country has long celebrated men whose conduct, by the standards you are now seeking to impose, would have been rendered pariahs if they had not been wealthy, white, and beloved. Demi Moore was 17 when she began an intimate relationship with Freddie Moore, who was 30. The big bopper married a 15-year-old when he was 22. Elvis Presley began his intimate relationship with Priscilla Presley when she was 14. Jerry Lee Lewis, he was 22. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin when he was 22. Cher was 16 when she began dating Sonny Bono, who was 27. Melanie Griffith was 14 when she began dating Don Johnson, who was 22. These men were not cast out of society. They were not branded irredeemable. Their careers flourished. Their legacies remained intact. They are remembered with nostalgia, admiration, and even reverence. but imagine, truly imagine how they would have been treated if they had been black or Hispanic imagine if they had been poor imagine if they had not been shielded by celebrity wealth and racial privilege would they have been forgiven would they have been celebrated or would they have been condemned, incarcerated and erased I have more here but my time has obviously expired I would ask though Every member of this committee should ask what financial incentives are driving this bill? Who profits from the expansion of the carceral state? Who benefits from filling more for-profit prisons with the marginalized and the powerless? Who stands to gain from legislation that destroys lives under the guise of protecting the vulnerable? Thank you for your time. Okay, thank you, Ms. Kepros. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Lori Rose Kepras. I'm speaking in opposition to 111. I'm the Director of Sexual Litigation for the Colorado Office of the State Public Defender. I've been specializing in sex crimes there since 2005. I've consulted on over 8,700 Colorado sex offense cases for that agency. This bill would mandate prison sentences under the Lifetime Supervision Act. That is the only thing it does It does not bring peace It does not bring closure It does not bring safety In 2023 the Colorado Lawyers Commission which is the same entity that sponsored federal civil rights legislation leading to a consent degree that has caused Colorado to have to pay out of the state budget for a backlog on the competency wait list, also agreed to sponsor federal litigation against the state of Colorado that has now been initiated because of the backlog at the Department of Corrections for failure to comply with the Lifetime Supervision Act and specifically the mandated treatment required by 18-1.3-1006. The litigation has survived motions to dismiss, summary judgment. It is full steam ahead. The only thing this bill does is potentially add to the list of people who may become potential plaintiffs in that lawsuit. This has been a problem for well over a decade. In the 2016 audit of the Department of Corrections behavioral health problems, the exact same problem was identified. There have been some courageous legislators who have attempted to address it over the last decade, but the problem remains. simply adding more and more hundreds and hundreds of people to a backlog system. There are right now between 150 and 175 people statewide enrolled in the sex offense treatment and monitoring program. That is 4% of the DOC population referred to that program. And my time is up, but I do want to hasten to add that the victims who do not get clarification while anyone is in DOC are the same people who return to these parole release hearings and the uncertainty of whether that person will ever be released over and over again because the wait list is causing this endless backlog at the Department of Corrections. Thank you, Mr. McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, my name is Luke McConnell, and I'm testifying in opposition of Senate Bill 111 on behalf of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. I've testified in front of this committee before, and since we're a little short on time, I'll just say that I'm in my 18th year of practice. I'm a member of various leadership committees in the legal community. I've engaged in policy work throughout my career, and I've represented many people accused of various sex offenses. Through the mechanism of across-the-board mandatory prison sentences, which for this bill would mean an indeterminate and potentially life sentence, Senate Bill 111, like other legislation proposed during this session, takes discretion away from judges, shifts power to prosecutors, and perhaps most importantly, makes an end run around the most important aspect of our criminal justice system, which is to fashion an individualized outcome in each case. First, a word on terminology. The committee has heard, and likely will hear, a lot of use of the word rape this afternoon. More specifically, child rape. Indeed, the title of this bill uses that word, and we heard that word being used by the sponsor. It has to be observed that the word rape does not appear in our criminal statutes. Indeed, it is not a legal term with a definition. The use of this terminology as a rhetorical tool is also misleading, because while criminal acts that could be described as child rape, whatever that term means, are covered by statutes modified by this bill, the truth is that these are the use of this terminology. Statutes cover a broad range of conduct. In our criminal justice system, the culpability of the wrongdoer is the most important concept. The more culpable you are, the greater the punishment. The less culpable you are, the less the punishment. When you have statutes that cover a wide range of conduct, it makes sense to have a wide range of punishments. This bill would do away with that, which is a fundamental principle of our justice system. There is much more that could be said. My time is up. I am happy to answer any questions from the committee. All right. Thank you. I think I will start with a few for either of the lawyer members of the panel. Ms. Gepros, you've been involved in a lot of cases. Mr. McConnell, it sounds like you've done some too. with specificity, what are some fact circumstances that you've seen, that you've been part of, that would lead to an imposition of a probationary sentence? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it's really difficult when people hear the terminology associated with this bill to understand the broad array of conduct that may come under this law, specific cases I have seen or touched. Consensual sexual contact between a 14-year-old and an 18-year-old who the age difference is four years and two days. I have seen people with significant cognitive disabilities who are in day programs and who have a mental age younger than the identified victim in their case. Again, over-the-closed touch counts under our criminal code, and so having contact with a minor under that circumstance has led to criminal charges. Again, even when the named defendant is less mature or sophisticated in some respects than the identified victim. You see cases where there is fluids being transmitted, and that is the nature of the contact. Again, we're not here to say these things shouldn't be crimes, but it's understandable why there are fact patterns where judges and often victims are actually happy to impose a probationary sentence because they see it as a vehicle through which the person can get the help they need to not cause harm again and potentially to allow some sort of restorative process for that survivor, which, again, they're not going to get in the Department of Corrections. I've asked the Department of Corrections Treatment Program point blank how many victims have received clarification while their perpetrator is in treatment in the Department of Corrections? And the answer is zero. It only happens in community treatment. Thank you. Different kind of question. Ms. Kepras, you alluded to it. And I think this is important for our record. We're not talking about a bill that would say, go in for more years. We're talking about a bill that's part of a scheme that's going on 30 years old that says, go in for an amount of time and we don't know how long that is. I guess I'll ask you to answer briefly over years of litigation but essentially our scheme creates a liberty interest in accessing treatment that you need to be able to parole out Canyon City and other places where prisons exist are pretty far away from population centers. This kind of treatment is difficult, dangerous. It's a rare kind of person who wants to do it. Hence, we have, I think, a shortage of folks doing this. Hence, we have the wait list. Hence, we have litigation raising due process arguments against the very existence of this scheme of a sort I understand we would not have if we just said you're going away for 20 and calling it done. Could you unpack that a little bit more for our record, please? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll do my best. When the Lifetime Supervision Act was passed in 1998, first, I think it's important to understand that Senator Anderson was very clear it was not intended to increase the amount of time people served in the Department of Corrections. But that intention is very different from what's happened in practice. even back in 1998 witnesses came before the House Judiciary Committee and said that people could not even get into the sex offender treatment and monitoring program then, before the mandate under the Lifetime Supervision Act and because the Lifetime Supervision Act has built into it this requirement to even become eligible for parole that population has just grown and grown and grown over the years. And that is why in the 2016 audit, the state had literally called DOC to the mat and said, what are you going to do about this? And DOC said, don't worry, we have a plan. And in 2016, they said in eight years, we will not have a global referral list. So I'm sitting in front of you now, and it's 2026, 10 years after that promise. And we still have a global referral list of over 700 people. And I need to explain, too, that list is a manipulation of the need. It is not reflecting the population that is being referred or required to engage in this treatment. It is a way to try to even begin to wrap their hands around the disparity between the resources and the mandates. So they don't put anyone on the list if they are more than four years from their parole eligibility date. And I'm emphasizing that because the federal court in the Lerner case, federal district court judge Wong has already indicated that the due process liberty interest requires access to that mandated treatment not at your parole eligibility date, not four years before your parole eligibility date, but as soon as you hit the steps of the Department of Corrections. So it's whatever those intentions were, they've just never come to fruition. In the 2024 DOC SOMB mandated solutions, treatment solutions report that this body had to tell those entities to write, there were no actual solutions. So you don't see meaningful changes in the numbers since that era You don see even telehealth even things that wouldn solve the problem but would address some of maybe you know the margins of the problem And perhaps most importantly from a public safety lens we know that the highest risk cohort are not those defendants who have been sentenced under the Lifetime Supervision Act They are people who have received determinate sentences. And if you have a determinate sentence right now, because of the backlog at the Department of Corrections, you will not do any treatment in prison. You will only commence treatment in the community as a condition of parole. So you're taking the highest risk population and giving them no treatment to fill up your tiny number of beds, 150, 175 beds in the state. it just makes absolutely no sense from a resources and public safety point of view. And I'll wrap up, but I just think it's important to understand that we are spending also $4 million a year on those 175 beds. I can't even wrap my mind around that. That's amazing. And above and beyond that, we are spending over $90 million a year where housing individuals classified S-5 who are past their parole eligibility date and have been unable to access this treatment in the Department of Corrections. So they are not getting paroled. Thank you. Thank you. I think I've run us to time on this panel. I'm doing eight minutes of Q&A for every panel, so we'll let you go, but thank you. All right. As indicated, we're going to keep rotating positions. I've had a request to call specific individuals for this next panel who may have a time constraint. Travis Christensen. Candace Stuckenschneider. Joe Kellerby. Colleen Enos Do we have Christy Neely? Okay, please do this. All right, sir, please go ahead. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Travis Christensen, and I serve as a sergeant with the Mesa County Sheriff's Office. I currently supervise the Complex Crimes Unit, where I oversee investigations involving sexual assault. I am here in support of this bill because it strengthens Colorado's commitment to protecting children and holding those who harm them fully accountable. At its heart, this legislation closes a dangerous gap in our sentencing laws for crimes that cause some of the deepest and most long-lasting harm a child can endure. Sex assault against a child is not a simple crime. It is a profound violation of innocence, safety, and human dignity. When a child is abused, the damage does not end when the crime stops. Survivors carry the trauma for the rest of their lives. Many struggle with anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, and difficulty trusting others. Their sense of safety in the world is shattered at an age when they should have been learning to trust adults around them. For many victims, the abuse is committed by someone they were taught to trust, an adult in a position of authority, care, or guidance, a coach, a caregiver, a family friend, or another trusted adult. When that trust is exploited, the betrayal cuts even deeper. it teaches a child that the people who are supposed to protect them instead chose to harm them That kind of betrayal can alter the course of any young person life Because the harm is so severe and long the consequences for those who commit these crimes must also be serious When someone chooses to sexually assault a child, they make a deliberate decision to destroy a young person's safety and innocence. Our laws should reflect the gravity of that decision. This bill does exactly that. It ensures that individuals convicted of sexual assault on a child, particularly when committed by someone in a position of trust, are sentenced to the Department of Corrections for an indeterminate term rather than probation. Probation may be appropriate for lesser offenses, but crime that involves sexual victimization of children demands stronger accountability and greater protection for the public. Colorado's indeterminate sentencing structure allows offenders to receive treatment while remaining under the strict supervision and ensure that the release decisions are based off of risk, progress, and the safety of the community. Ultimately, the legislation sends a clear and necessary message that the safety of the dignity of Colorado's children must come first. When a child's innocence is stolen and the trust is shattered, our justice system must respond with consequences that reflect the seriousness of that harm. I respectfully urge you to support this bill, and I stand firmly with the side of Colorado's children. Thank you, sir. Please go ahead. Esteemed members of the Judiciary Committee, good afternoon. My name is Candace Stuckenschneider, and I serve as an investigator with the Mesa County Sheriff's Office, where I primarily investigate sexual assault crimes against children. Today, I am here in support of Senate Bill 26-111. The core philosophies of the criminal justice system are punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. However, in these cases, the Colorado judicial system has lost sight of punishment and deterrence by allowing probation for Class 4 felonies and certain Class 3 felonies involving sexual assault of children. Offenders who usually sexually assault children must be held fully accountable. these crimes are committed against the most vulnerable members of our community. When appropriate punishment is opposed, it sends a clear, necessary message of deterrence, that we will not tolerate the sexual assault of children, that such actions will result in meaningful consequences rather than probationary sentences. Through our investigations, we constantly find that access to victims is one of the most significant factors of these crimes. In cases where the offenders in a position of trust, access, and manipulation are some of the key elements. Sentencing offenders to victimize children to the Department of Corrections removes that access and limits their ability to manipulate both victims and the probation system. Too often, children of sexual assault are left without protection. Senate Bill 26-111 takes necessary steps towards changing that. These children endure lifelong trauma where other offenders are too often allowed to complete probation without true accountability. This bill will restore the foundational principle of punishment by eliminating probation as an option for these serious crimes against children. It ensures the severity of these offenses is matched with their appropriate sentencing. I would like to thank each and every single one of you for your time and your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Ma'am. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Christy Neely. I'm here today in strong support of Senate Bill 26111. I've spent time sitting in courtrooms following cases involving sexual exploitation, trafficking, and abuse. What I saw was deeply troubling, not just the crimes themselves, but the lack of meaningful consequences for those responsible. again and again individuals who committed serious offenses against children were offered plea deals that resulted in little to no real account Probation, reduce charges, minimal consequences for devastating harm. And I witnessed one case that I cannot forget. A man who'd committed a sexual offense wasn't only given probation, but his probation terms were written in a way that immediately allowed him to work inside private homes, even if children were present. He was given access back into homes with children. That is not accountability, that is exposure. And we have to ask ourselves, what message does that send? It tells victims their pain is negotiable. It tells offenders the risk is low. It creates space for this abuse to continue. Because the reality in Colorado is this, high-risk offenders to re-offend. Data from the Colorado Department of Public Safety shows that over 20% of high-risk sexual offenders are re-arrested for new sexual offenses over time. And that only reflects the known cases, not the many crimes that go unreported. So when consequences are weak and safeguards still allow access to children, we're not just failing to respond to past harm, we're increasing the likelihood of future victims. And too often, we see misplaced compassion where the system bends over backwards to give second chances to offenders while victims are left carrying lifelong trauma with very little support or justice. SB 26111 is a necessary step towards correcting that. This bill strengthens accountability, ensures that those who exploit and harm children face consequences that actually reflect the severity of their actions, and that safeguards actually protect the public. We cannot say we're protecting children if the system continues to go as easy on those who abuse them. Thank you very much. I urge a yes vote. Thank you, Ms. Neely. Ma'am. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Colleen Enos, and I represent Christian Home Educators of Colorado. We support home discipleship that is Christ-centered, parent-directed, and free from government control. We would urge a yes vote on SB 26111. In Colorado, a man who rapes a child, as long as it is just once, can get probation. They can walk right out of the courtroom after conviction. But it's worse than that. If that same man goes on to rape nine other children, as long as he only rapes them each once, that child rapist is also eligible for probation. That statement remains true even if the child rapist is a teacher, a member of the clergy, a sports coach, or any other person in a position of trust in relation to those children. Colorado law permits those who seek to use our children for sex to be probation eligible when convicted. The facts that I just read came from a statement from District Attorney Brochler in the 23rd Judicial District. This bill would change all that and require that child rapists serve time in prison. We want our children to be safe and protected, and they deserve to be. By passing this bill, we keep them safe from predators. We give them justice, and we guarantee that their attackers will go to jail. Vote yes on SB 26111 to stand up and protect Colorado's children. They are counting on us. Thank you. Thank you And then online please go ahead Thank you Chair and Judiciary Committee This is Joe Kellerby I am from Mesa County Department of Human Services and I am our Child Welfare and Adult Protection Director And I'd like to speak with you today about Senate Bill 26111 and my support of that. In the 21 years of doing child welfare in Mesa County, I am responsible for protecting our most vulnerable. I am also responsible for releasing the resources that is needed to serve sexual abuse child victims in my county. And I can say without a doubt that the resources that are needed in order to serve sex abuse victims that are children far outweigh any fiscal note that has been reported today. The lifelong resources that are needed for child sex assault victims from mental health, behavioral health, and even physical health is a big problem in our community. And ensuring that child convicted sexual predators are removed from our society, which this bill would do, would ensure that there will be less child victims of sexual assault, that these victims would be able to have the necessary resources to overcome the victimization that they have due to their assaulters. And I would just say that ensuring ensuring that our child victims get what they need and we do not have as many child sex predators in our society is not only something that we need to take serious, but as a responsibility that us leaders and legislators need to do what by passing this bill. I thank you for your time. All right. Thank you, sir. Members, are there questions of any of our witnesses? See none. Thank you all for testifying with us. Get home safe. All right, next panel will be those folks who signed up indicating an opposition position. Do we have Amelia Blythe? Okay, please come up. Kelly Shelton. Stephanie Mays. Brian Garrett. Marsha Brewer. Okay, we'll start in the room while we get folks on the Zoom. Ma'am, at the end, please go ahead. Please check the mic, gray button on the stem. Halfway up the stem is the gray button. Not very good with technology. My name is Amelia Blythe. I'm a public defender. I've been a public defender for 10 years. I've worked in El Paso County, so I've heard from the sheriffs from there, and I also currently work in Pueblo, so I'm looking at you, Senator. I've had the opportunity to represent over 100 people in my career charged with these type of allegations. And I want to start, I think, by maybe correcting the record a little bit about what charges already receive mandatory Department of Corrections sentences, because I've heard the facts of those type of allegations coming from some folks who are in support. if there is an allegation of even two of butt touches, breast touches, that is what is called a pattern, and if it was in a position of trust, it would already be mandatory Department of Corrections. If there were a threat, if there was any force used, if there was penetration, it's already covered by a law called Jessica's Law, already mandatory Department of Corrections. Our sentencing scheme is already very aware of these sort of very aggressive severe kinds of fact patterns and they are already subject to mandatory Department of Corrections sentences And so what we doing here with this bill would remove and would tie the hands of any judge who sees a mitigating factor who thinks that this person has a chance of success in the community. I also would like to note that I have also tried, I've gone to trial on an exceptional number of these cases. As a defense attorney, I think it would be, honestly, if this was mandatory Department of Corrections for all of these charges, I don't see a defense attorney telling their client to ever take a plea. I think that the chances of these trials going to trial and these child victims being subjected to things like cross-examination would increase. And I think that there are negative, unintended consequences of this bill when someone might otherwise want to take accountability. Thank you. Madam in the middle, please go ahead. Good afternoon, members of the chair. My name is Kelly Shulton. I've been a private defense attorney now for the past four years, 18 years in total. And I spent 14 years with the Colorado State Public Defender's Office. I've stood next to approximately 500 people accused of a variety of sex crimes. I want to start off by saying that at no point has the legislature ever decided that there should be mandatory probation. In fact, probation tends to be what I would call our ground level. And for mayor, our judiciary decides whether or not they should increase those penalties, which are always available to them. When we take away that ability from the legislature, we've done a couple of things. What we have done is we've put a lot of that power then in the role of the executive branch, the DAs. And when we say that something's mandatory, for example, the coach who pats the butt of the young lady who passes by, is it appropriate? No. Is it illegal? Yes. Do I stand by it because I agree with it? No. But we stand by it because we want to look at a whole person, and we want to give our judiciary, that third person in a courtroom, the chance to review that. We want to give the victim a voice as well. And when we say mandatory prison, we're doing the opposite. We're saying to the victims, we're going to make the decision for you. We want to tell the judicial system that that person deserves prison. We're not asking them to give a voice to the judiciary. we're not asking them to look at the judge and hear them and hear why they ask for probation, what they know about the person. We've never stood well on one leg. And when we give mandatory prison to the DA, we don't solve problems, we create new ones. Now the judge doesn't determine mitigation, the DA does. And if they then decide we want to give probation, they have to pick a different crime. Is that listening to the victims? It's not. And so we'll just pick it or fix it. We have to then figure out a way to fix that problem, when really we don't have a problem. Judges are not putting people on probation who have penetrated young women or young men. They're listening to those victims in that courtroom, and they are getting severe punishments. And if they get sent to prison, it is indeterminate. When we have probation, and a very busty and robust one that we do, that deals with probation, deals with risk, deals with recidivism, we solve problems. If mass incarceration solved problems, we wouldn't have the crime rate we do. We need to figure out why and how, not just let's give one side more power to make the decision. Thank you. Thank you. At the end, please go ahead.
My name is Stephanie Mays and I here to speak about a topic that has not been approached by those in favor or opposed to this legislation and that is truth Truth with a capital T My sister was arrested in August 2006 after volunteering herself to go and testify at a trial of a family member who was going through a divorce and custody battle. It was so fierce that her sister-in-law was convicted of molesting her children so that the husband could get custody of their four children. My sister and her husband knew this could have never happened, and they went to testify on behalf of that family member when the same charges three years later were posed onto them. My sister Lacey Nelson chose not to accept a plea deal because she was simply innocent of all the charges she had been accused of. Her husband, however, did take a plea deal, got 10 years probation. My sister is now, as of April 1st, will be incarcerated for 18 years for a crime that never happened. A crime that never happened. So when I ask you to oppose this, I'm asking you to make sure that innocence is considered. The SOMB left that clause out when it started. My sister's been denied parole five times since 2011. She'll be denied parole again in May because the law simply says you have to be in treatment. In order to be in treatment, you need to admit guilt for a crime. What crime? The crime of testifying the truth that it never happened. These things happen in this system. It's happened to my sister. Her sons were taken away. And I will say this in closing. I don't come by this lightly. I'm a childhood survivor of being drugged and molested by a stepfather in my home. I was raped in my church. And I was also molested in a doctor's office. Every single one of these professionals that stood up as police and sheriffs are telling the truth. Yeah, it's hard. It's hard to recover from it, but it's not impossible. It's not impossible. What I'm asking you to realize is that false accusations are made, and they've been made in our family, and it has caused incredible devastation. and the cost to repair it, there is no dollar amount that you can put on it. There's no dollar amount. My sister sits in Denver Women's Correctional Facility. Just visited her this morning. I come here from Houston, Texas, to tell you guys there's some serious things that went wrong in my sister's life, and I don't want it to happen to somebody else. Thank you.
Thank you for sharing. If you'll all please hold, we'll hear from our online witness, then we'll see if there are questions. Mr. Garrett, please go ahead.
Chairman Wiseman and member of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. My name is Brian Garrett, and I'm a Westminster resident speaking in opposition to Senate Bill 26111. I'm not a lawyer or a policy expert. I'm someone who has seen firsthand how the criminal justice system affects real families, and I'm here because I believe this bill will cause significant harm, both human and financial, in the name of protection. I want to start with something we all agree on. Protecting children from sexual abuse matters deeply. That is not the question. What is the question is whether mandatory incarceration, regardless of individual circumstances, actually accomplishes that goal. Lurch says it does not, and the cost to Colorado taxpayers is we cannot afford to pretend otherwise. I also want to address the claim that probation for a Class 3 or Class 4 felony is somehow an easy pass. It is not. In Colorado sex offense, probation means placement of the sex offender intensive supervision probation. That program is one of the most demanding supervision structures in the entire state. Under SOISP, individuals are subject to mandatory participation in sex offense treatment, polygraph examinations at minimum twice a year, strict curfews, electronic monitoring, restrictions on Internet use, housing, employment, and in many cases, where and if they can travel. And critically, because the sentence is indeterminate, probation does not end on a set date. It can last a natural lifetime. A person on sex offence probation may be supervised longer than someone who served a prison term. Calling that an easy pass is simply not accurate, and this committee deserves to hear that clearly. Colorado's own sex offender management board tracks outcomes of individuals completing sex offence treatment under state supervision. Their data shows success rates of 95 to 97 percent of among treatment completers. That's among the best of any crime classification. And the Bureau of Justice Statistics nine year study found that people released after sex offense specific or I'm sorry, after sex offense convictions have the second lowest recent reoffense rate of any crime category tracked. That's not just numbers to justify eliminating the judge's ability to consider the facts that are in front of them. Now, consider the fiscal reality of the bill creates. Colorado already spends a documented minimum of ninety nine million per year on lifetime supervision cases alone. and that number does not include law enforcement compliance checks, court costs, or registry operations. The state pays around $156 per day for every person held in the state prison bed. State auditors have previously estimated that the treatment backlogs alone are holding people past their parole eligibility dates not because they were denied release, but because there wasn't enough treatment slots to qualify them for consideration. SB 26111 does not or will expand that backlog, adding roughly $57,000 per person per year for individuals who are currently succeeding under intensive supervised community supervision. And I am past my time. So I will wrap up with saying please vote no on SB 2611. Thank you.
All right, sir. Thank you for wrapping up. Members, other questions for our witnesses? I think for our lawyer members on the panel, same question you might have heard me ask a prior panel. You've each done a number of these cases. Can you describe the facts of where a sentence to DOC has been imposed under the sections we're talking about? And can you describe facts where a sentence to probation has been imposed?
I guess I can start. I have gone to trial and probably, I think I looked this morning, about 40 cases of this type of allegation. It's not a specialty that I meant to get into. Probation is exceptionally rare. Probation is not something that is being given out lightly. When I was practicing in El Paso County, it was, I think I can count on one hand, the number of clients who were afforded the opportunity. and they were always in exceptional circumstances, very similar to those that Ms Kepro already described for the body The only other options I think I sort of mentioned briefly which were an over breast touch and an over butt touch Those are exceptionally serious. They are demeaning and they are criminalized. And they are things that people got the opportunity to do the hardest possible probation that exists, SOISP. I think both my clients got 10 to life for those probation. I hope that answers the question.
Appreciate that. And if you wanted to speak to the same question.
I think what's interesting about the sex assault cases against children already is that the consequences are so severe that we do tend to negotiate them more often than we go to trial. When we go to trial, especially on cases that involve pattern, we're already at a position where a judge does not have the option of probation And the client or defendant will, in fact, be sentenced to a minimum of 8 to 10 years in the Department of Corrections to their natural life indeterminately. So I think a majority of the time we're working within negotiations. I think at this, I've seen a swing myself in the 18 years that I've been a criminal defense attorney from how the district attorney's offices have treated sex offenses to, I think, where they treat them now. And I do not believe that probation is offered very often as a sole sentence. I think we see the ability of the district attorney's office to use the sentencing scheme as is, knowing, quite frankly, that prison is so significant, so severe, and so likely to occur. And I think if there's a case where a judge has a discretion and it is a sex assault on a child, and we do have the rare instances, again, where it's a single incident. So it has to be a single incident for the individual to be eligible for probation. And I think what's interesting about the discussion of sex assault is the idea that they have this access to these victims. When they have that access, we are seeing pattern. We're not seeing one person taking one access or one access to a child each time in order to, in essence, avoid mandatory prison. and quite frankly if we do have somebody like that again the idea that a judge would sit in front of that person and say I think you deserve probation I do not think is a realistic statement I think that everybody and especially our judges are highly trained in exactly what's been talked about they go to conferences they have sex offense experts teach them about risk assessment and recidivism. They have them teach them about predatory behavior. They have a lot of professional beings out there discussing with these judges these concepts. And so when I see probation given, it is on cases, quite frankly, where the victim is usually requesting it. The district attorney tends to agree that that's appropriate. It is very rarely when everybody stands in front of that judge and says, we demand prison, and the judge says, no. In fact, I can't think of one.
Thank you. Let me follow up on you've mentioned pattern, or one or the other of you has mentioned pattern once or twice. So that is 18.3405 to D, and then the other subs in 2A, B, and C. That's for our record here. All right. This offense goes from an F4 to an F3 if 2A use of force 2 threat of death SBI et cetera 2C threat of retaliation 2D is pattern Keep reading down the statute. Any of those trigger sentencing in accordance with 18.1.3406, which is COV, which is mandatory, and not just mandatory, but aggravating to half, or midpoint presumptive to double presumptive. So in those situations, and I elided over the facts in the interest of time, but within this statute there are already a number of situations where discretion is removed, and we're going to DOC. Correct reading?
Yes, correct reading.
Thank you. Members, other questions? Senator Zamora Wilson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm sorry I missed your name.
Stephanie Mays.
My question is, in regards to your sister's case, where did the error happen? Did the judge make a wrong call?
Well, since we have two minutes and 26 seconds maybe to answer that question, I don't know that I can go into full detail. But what I can tell you, the lawyers that have looked into her cases, the lawyers that have attempted to represent her, all appeals have been denied. There's no more legal way to go about this. However, a federal judge that was part of a tribunal on one of her appeals did approach a law professor and its testimony in her clemency video that you can see at lacynelson.com, was approached by a federal judge that was part of a tribunal that they could not offer relief because the attorneys did not do the right thing in the filing of her appeal. So again, it wasn't about truth. My sister could have never gone to prison if she accepted a plea deal and accepted the chance to be a sex offender for the rest of her life. There are so many. Her attorney, Gail Johnson, could probably write a book. on all the ways. The missteps, the misfed real deadlines that Innocence Projects missed, it goes on and on and on. So, Ms. Wilson, it's failure of the justice system to do what was right. And the false accusations, I do want to add, were made by children who all had autistic diagnosis. as soon as the trial was over the father of those children took the children out of the state no one ever followed up with the children who apparently, you know, they said all these horrible things nobody ever checked up on those children and I want to say it fell through the cracks maybe, but it's a huge injustice LaceyNelson.com, my name is Stephanie Mays I'm a sister that never grew up with her I found her when she was 11 years old, and eight years ago I got a phone call that I had evidence to support her case because she had been living with me in Houston, Texas, during the time that she was accused of these crimes.
Senator, follow-up? Good for now? All right. Members, other questions? Seeing none, ma'am, thank you for sharing. Sounds like you've come a long way. Thank you all. Okay next question will be I sorry next panel will be folks signed up in a supportive position Danielle Jaramillo and Jessica Dotter and Nathan Fisher And do we have Rachel Gonzalez? Please come up. All right, we'll start on this end. Ms. Jaramillo, please go ahead.
Can I hit it right? Up there. My name is Danielle Jaramillo. I'm a chief deputy district attorney of the special victims unit in the 23rd Judicial District. I previously was in the 18th Judicial District. I'm in kind of a unique position in that from the prosecutor's side, I've been doing only special victims unit crimes, mostly crimes against children, for almost the last 10 years. It's over nine years where that's all I have been doing. I've been a prosecutor longer than that. I would say that I have probably had to come into contact with and speak to probably somewhere between 300 to 400 families who were victimized by somebody for sexual assault on a child. And every time that I have to meet with them at the beginning of the case and explain the potential penalties when we're talking about these very specific crimes, the look that I get from them when I tell them, even though this person sexually assaulted your child, because it only happened once, and I say only and I'm not meaning to be rude in that, I have to explain this, because it only happened once, this person could, at the end of the day, get probation. It is accurate that if somebody did it once, sexually assaulted once, to five or ten different victims, but it wasn't two times to the same victim, that person, again, would still be probation eligible. in order to have that pattern crime, it would have to be two times to one victim, two separate events to one victim. And so I have to explain to families this, and the look of shock upon their face when I tell them that we could go through trial, we could put your daughter through having to testify, we could put them through this re-victimization, and at the end of the day, this person might still get probation. The look that they give me when they say, well, why are we even going through this then? if my child at the end of the day may still feel like they might run into the person at a grocery store. I think when I speak to the public as well, we hear that as well, where people are astonished that this is not already the law, and that's all across the board, nonpartisan. So I would urge everyone to vote yes for this, and I'm willing to answer any questions that need to be asked.
Thank you. Ms. Dotter.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Jessica Dotter. I'm the Senior Chief for Legislative Policy and Special Victims Prosecution prosecution for the Colorado District Attorneys Council. All 23 elected district attorneys urge your support for SB 111. I've been a sex crimes prosecutor my entire career, and much like Ms. Jaramillo, have worked face-to-face with these victims day in and day out for now going on 13 years. I want to share some statistics, right, because we can all share anecdotes of specific cases that are awful. However, I think it's important for this body to recall that when we're talking about the consistency of victimization in Colorado, we're talking about one in four girls or 160,000 female children in Colorado who are sexually victimized every year. One in six boys or approximately 106,000 male children who are sexually victimized in Colorado every year. Offenders, however, we are sitting at having convicted and sent to DOC approximately 3,540 since 19. 98. The remainder of those who got probation after committing these crimes, 9,442. Compare those numbers. Of those 3,540 committed to DOC, 78% have been released on parole or otherwise removed from lifetime supervision since the inception of this act. 78%, that's 2,760 people who have been released since 1998. This is not a life sentence for every offender convicted. This is about less than 10% of the DOC population. It's about 9.2%. And I'd hope we'd all agree that this is the population that is the most deserving to be in prison. I'm happy to talk more about how the parole board works, what discretionary release looks like, how many of those offenders come back into prison after release, and how many are registered in your communities. I will say that while I, again, anecdotes that people often get prison, the numbers are that 74% of sexual offenders obtain probation right off the bat. And that does include adult and child victims. However, 77% of those in prison on indeterminate sentences are there for child sex crimes. So in concluding, there are many, many reasons why the statistics weigh in favor of sending sexual offenders who have actually been convicted of abusing children, whether by touch, whether by penetration, or some other heinous means like semen being spilled onto them, belong in prison. Thank you.
Mr. Fisher.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Nathan Fisher. Oh, sorry. And I serve as the Associate Director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, which is the united voice of the four bishops of Colorado. I'm testifying in support of Senate Bill 111 today. Currently, Colorado law allows for the possibility of probation for individuals convicted of specific sexual assaults against children, including cases where the perpetrator is in a position of trust. SB 111 fixes this by eliminating probation as a sentencing option for Class 3 and Class 4 felony child sexual assaults. It mandates that the individuals in places of trust serve time in the Department of Corrections. According to the Center for Disease Control, child sexual assault is perpetrated by a person in a position of trust, such as a family member, teacher, coach, or caregiver, and is a widespread public health concern, with some research indicating that approximately 90% of all child sexual assault cases are committed by someone known and trusted. According to the National Children's Alliance, victims of this have high prevalence of mental health conditions. Survivors commonly experience severe long-term mental health challenges, including depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Betrayal trauma. Abuse by a trusted person causes betrayal trauma, which can lead to a fundamental lack of trust in authority figures and others throughout life. Suicidal and self-harm. Research indicates high rates of suicidal ideation of nearly one in three and self-harming about one in five among survivors. According to the Rape Abuse Incest National Network, victims have confusing nature of their abuse. When a caregiver or trusted authority figure is the abuser, the child may struggle to understand why they are being abused and may not report that abuse. Let's send a signal to Colorado and to the nation that inflicting long-term harm on our children is not okay, that our justice system is restorative and fair, but will treat abusive children with the seriousness it deserves due to the long trauma to the victim and recognize that someone who is in a position of trust has a duty to contribute to the healthy development of the children they interact with This bill is a proactive step towards justice providing the protection of our children deserve and the accountability our community demands. On behalf of the Colorado Bishops, we respectfully ask you to vote yes on Senate Bill 111. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Rachel Gonzalez. I am a child advocate, and I was raped by my biological father as a child. From the age of 10 until I was 16 years old, he raped me, my biological father. So in hearing all of this testimony today, I was moved. I was moved, and I was moved in the sense that everything I'm hearing is correct. It brought back all this emotional trauma, just sitting here hearing all these statistics and everything regarding sexual assault. He received a 42-year sentence for his crimes against me, including two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor and two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor. He was released in half the time, only serving 21 years of his sentence. When he was released from prison, he began stalking me at my place of employment where I was an internal auditor and at my school, where I was completing my master's degree in business administration. His actions prompted me to file a restraining order against him. I recently relocated from my home state of New Mexico, and in 2016, Rachel's Law, named after me, was passed, providing a permanent protective order for victims of sexual assault with an attorney or advocate appearing for the victim. The current governor in New Mexico introduced it in Washington, D.C. in 2015. Recently, Senate Bill 41 was passed in the 2026 New Mexico legislative session providing for the removal of the statute of limitations for certain sex crimes. I was an advocate for this. I'm sorry, I'm very shaken up. The 2019 Healthy Kids Colorado survey states that 10.1% of female students and 3.4% of male students report sexual assault. victims are most vulnerable between the ages of 7 and 13. When my father was incarcerated I felt safe. I felt safe. When he was released after only serving half of his time I was in the middle of my MBA program and my life turned upside down. because now I was in fear, thank you, I was in fear of him coming after me, which he did. I request that you consider that this isn about movie stars and who they date This has nothing to do with that This isn about one person This is about all the statistics across this board across this panel that have presented this afternoon. I know it's an astounding thought to think that a biological father would rape his daughter or molest his daughter. It happens. Unfortunately, children, when they're with people who trust them and in those types of positions, it's terrifying. I ask that you please, please consider passage of this bill. Thank you.
Thank you for sharing and testifying. Members, questions for any witness? Senator Carson and then Senators Moore Wilson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions for Ms. Jaramillo. First one is, is there a concern, some folks have expressed a concern, if you get this indeterminate sentence, that you're not going to be eligible for parole because there aren't going to be enough rehabilitative services and so forth. What's your experience on that?
Ms. Jaramillo. Thank you so much for that question. I think that Ms. Dotter has probably the actual data that backs this up, but as she stated, 78% of people who have been sentenced to this have been released on or discharged from prison who have been on this type of a lifetime sentence. 70-something percent. I could be wrong at the 8, but it's 70-something percent. So it's only 20-something percent who are still in prison, and that includes people that maybe have a 200-year-to-life sentence. And there are a lot of those. On probably half the trials I've done, we end up getting a sentence like that because there's multiple victims who have done it multiple times in really heinous ways. And so that includes people that are serving these super long sentences who will never be eligible to get out of that 22%. So I don't know if Ms. Dotter wants to add to that, but she would have that information.
Ms. Dotter.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator Carson, for the question. Yes, so 78% since the inception of the act have been paroled or otherwise discharged. I will say that when we talk about eligibility and parole eligibility dates, the parole eligibility date for a sex offender is meaningless and arbitrary in statute. It's set up so that the person is eligible for parole after serving 75% of their sentence, but because indeterminate sex offenders are the sole population that we mandate some minor amount of progression through treatment before they are eligible for parole, the date doesn't really matter, right? It's based on substance and subjective ability for that offender to complete treatment. I will not deny that DOC could use more treatment providers, right? We could use more treatment providers for sex offenders, for domestic violence offenders who don't get any necessarily mandated treatment in prison, for substance abuse, for mental health. All of that DOC could be better at. At the end of the day, when there are only about 550 people eligible because they haven't gotten close enough to their pro-eligibility date, they refuse treatment because, remember, many of these people have gone to trial. on these cases because they have nothing to lose. They could get probation at the end of the day, and they hoping that that 10 is not going to show up and that we have to dismiss our case But those who have gone to trial and lost and ended up in DOC are in appeal for three to five years and they not talking They've been advised typically to not speak about their offense even to a treatment provider. And so they'll avail themselves of the opportunity of treatment in order to avoid the potential consequences since they're still on appeal. So I try to give that context to you to say that of the treatment available in prison, there are about 175, the last time I checked, in June 2025, according to the reports, who are in treatment out of the eligible 555. So when we look at all the numbers in context, we're not talking about over mass incarceration of this population, which again is less than 10% of the DOC population. Good for now. I do have one more, if I can, Mr. Chairman. On the fiscal note, does that impact, I mean, this fiscal note we've been given here is quite high, $38 million over four years. And I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on that, Ms. Jaramillo. Ms. Romeo. Yeah, I think it's not accurate, at least especially for the next four years, I'll tell you that. So when we're talking about children who are sexually assaulted, the far majority of them are not going to report right away. So sometimes we get children reporting months later, but even that is rare. It's very typical that a child is reporting years after the abuse or potentially even decades after the abuse. And then we're filing charges. So the only people that this new law would apply to are offenders who, whenever this bill passes, say this bill passes and we go July 1st, it's put into action. an offender would have to have committed the sexual assault on a child after July 1st. The child would have had to come forward. The case would have to be charged. A case would then have to be convicted and then to sentencing. So we're not going to see an impact, especially within 2026. I would guess that even if we saw an impact in 2027, that might be five offenders that are going to fall under there because the far majority of them are going to be years before even things get reported, let alone something goes through trial and to sentencing. And so this is not going to have an immediate fiscal impact at all.
Interesting. All right. Senator Zamora Wilson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This would be for Ms. Daughter. I'm curious, what's the average, how long does the average sex offender stay in DSU before parole? and also what exactly is a low-risk sex offender?
Ms. Daughter.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator Zamora Wilson, for the question. So in this role as the Special Victims Prosecutor for CDAC, we have compiled the data that DOC has given us, basically for how many people who have been convicted of indeterminate sex offenses and have gone to prison from 1998 to 2024. like I said out of that basically 3500 3540 people we've had about let's say 2066 who have been paroled another 700 or so have been discharged for other reasons right so when we take a look at the 2066 people I asked DOC can you give me how many years those people actually spent in prison and how long their initial sentences were so that we determine an average sentence for, we call it a length of stay, per the sentence actually doled out. DOC, as of the last update I was able to do in September 2024, DOC provided me 1,367 data points out of those 2,066. I'm not sure why they didn't provide the other 700. I can see that 2,066 people have paroled based on their annual reports and just adding together each number. but they've only provided me with 1,367. So out of those 1,367 who have initially paroled, whether their sentence is two years, four years, 16 years, 25 years, the average length of stay is 10.3 years. So let's take a two-year sentence, the very minimum. That's a large number of offenders that go in on a two-year sentence because that's the minimum for an F4 child sexual abuse. The average length of stay is seven years. On a 15-year sentence, the average length of stay was 8.8 years. On a 25-year sentence, now there's only, well, let's use a better one, a 10-year sentence, there's been 103 under that since the inception, 12.1 is the average amount. And when we talk about low-risk sex offenders, knowing we are running short on time, they're called, I think many people cite them as being low-risk based on risk assessments that are determining whether or not they could be treated in the community. those risk assessments are based on things that most sex offenders have as character traits. Are they well educated? Yes, most sex offenders are. Are they well off or have jobs? Yes, most sex offenders are. Do they have criminal history? No, most sex offenders do not have any criminal history. They blend into society in order to commit their crimes. What a lot of those risk assessments don't do is take into account the fact that they abused a family member. Well, that's actually considered lower risk if you abused a family member because you didn't go out and, you know, sexually abuse a stranger. But if you abused your daughter for 10 years, you're low risk. I think I've cited in front of this committee before that running the risk assessments on Larry Nassar, he was low risk.
We are at time on this panel. I just wanted to say in closing, Ms. Gonzalez, since you referred to things going on in some other states, in Colorado in 21, we got rid of, prospectively, got rid of the civil statute of limitations on claims that one might bring for recompense for a variety of sexual offenses. We attempted to do what's called a look-back window for offenses that had been committed prior to that year, reaching back, I think, to 1960, due to some language in our state constitution that not every state that's taken up this issue has that mechanism, attempted mechanism for survivors, was invalidated in court. But it remains that prospectively there's not a civil statute of limitation for these offenses. Just wanted to mention that. Thank you all for being here. Okay. I'm going to recall some names of folks who had signed up in an opposition position. I think we've had some new folks join us in the room. Do we have Jessica Williams-Barras? Written, okay. Sarah Krug, Julia Stensel, written. Do we have Marsha Brewer? She had signed up online. All right anyone else in the room wanted to testify against or amend or let say even neutral Please come up. All right, ma'am, we'll start with you at the end. Please go ahead. Thank you so much, Chairman Wiseman.
My name is Sarah Krug. I'm a criminal defense attorney in private practice at Jertim LLC representing people accused of sex offenses for over 20 years. I'm the private defense attorney representative on Colorado's Sex Offender Management Board, which is often referred to as the SOMB, and I am also on CCDB's board, and I am speaking on behalf today in opposition of this bill. Because of my work on the SOMB, I was very fortunate to get to travel to Fremont Correctional Facility and see the SOTM program firsthand. I have good news to report. The program is excellent. The therapists are dedicated and engaging with their mission. The treatment the clients are receiving is first class. The people are making lasting changes in their lives, the kind of changes that not only result in self-improvement but also make the entire community a safer place to be. And now the bad news. When you see the program firsthand, you understand it is just simply not possible to scale that program up to accommodate more people. There's not a budget to remodel Fremont, to create more office space. There's not more beds for people to occupy. There's not more physical room that is suddenly created in this old prison. There's not a list of highly qualified therapists banging down the door to do this difficult but rewarding work. Not to mention, there's already an extensive wait list to get into the program. That's not a problem that can be solved by throwing money at it. And while it is truly amazing what the SOTMP program is accomplishing, there is not room for it to grow larger. Because the program is a limited resource with a very long waiting list already, we must be judicious in how we decide who will participate in it by deciding who goes to prison instead of allowing treatment in the community. The best way to be judicious here is to trust judges to make decisions about the appropriate punishment in these cases. In making those decisions, judges are relying on very sophisticated risk assessment tools. And I'm happy to talk about how Larry Nassar is not low risk on any risk assessment that has been completed by a professional. Today's risk assessments look at a person's total life experience over multiple domains and calculate each person's score against years and years of actuarial data. Most people who are convicted of the crimes that issue in this bill go to prison, and you are more likely, two times more likely, to die on a LSA prison or parole sentence than to complete 10 to life of parole. Two times more likely. So when you hear 78% from the people who are supporting the bill, that includes people who are dead. In the rare case where people don't go to prison, there's usually a compelling reason. and that's supported by risk assessment data. If you want to hear the war stories, please ask. But my experience, many of these people, including sometimes prosecutors, are shocked by the unusual facts, scenarios that have arisen in these cases and resulted in criminal charges. I urge you to rely on a sophisticated and advanced system that Colorado has already put in place, and I urge you to vote in opposition to this bill.
All right, thank you. Sir, in the middle, please go ahead. Thank you.
My name is Daniel Katz. I was a public defender mostly in Jefferson County for 22 years. I been in private practice for almost nine years I kind of want to talk about some cases that I had personally and the other side of the coin to what the prosecutor was speaking about having to talk to a little girl or the girl parents about what sort of sentence someone can expect I represent innocent people. I've also represented guilty people. It's the innocent people I want to talk about. when I have to look at their faces and they've passed a polygraph exam and they've got a moderate risk OSE because like was stated previously, no one who is alleged to have committed this sort of crime, even alleged, is likely to come up low risk. So it's a moderate risk typically for someone who's alleged. But when I have clients who pass a poly and are low risk and the facts kind of don't add up and I have to explain to them the tens of thousands of dollars it will cost to hire me to represent them and give them a quality representation. And the likelihood that if they're convicted, even of an F4, that they're going to end up in prison, the look of shock on their faces is the other side of that coin of the look of the parent's face for someone's daughter who was violated. And we live in a system where you're innocent unless and until you're proven guilty. And to explain to that client what they're facing, And if you change the law to make it mandatory prison for one touch, it's inconceivable that some clients can't comprehend that. I had a trial recently where a client was alleged to have touched both his daughters within like a five-year span. Same touches with his sons as well. He was the masseuse in the family. Kids asked him for sports massages. Daughter said her collarbone was hurting. He massaged right here. according to the daughter two inches above the nipple. One time she got up, walked away. Then the other daughter said, oh yeah, well dad massaged my butt when her legs were hurting. Sons made the same allegation. He was charged with the two daughters. If there was a mandatory sentence, prison sentence hanging over his head, he might have pled to something he did not do. We went to trial. Fortunately, it was an eight to four hung jury for not guilty. and we didn't go to trial again, the DA dismissed the case. It is very easy for an innocent person to be put in that position and to have a draconian sentence hanging over their head. I would not want to be in my client's shoes in those situations. I had another case years ago, my first case in private practice in Arapahoe County. I believe Mr. Brockler was a DA then. That was a SAOC pattern, father against daughter. He passed the poly. He was low risk. I tried to meet with George to talk about the case. I couldn't get a non-mandatory offer out of him. We went to trial. I cross-examined that girl. She was the first witness. After I completed that cross-examination, the DA agreed to dismiss the case. Tens of thousands of dollars later for that client. He owed me money going into trial. I knew I wouldn't even get paid if he went to prison because he wouldn't be able to pay me what he owed me. A judge in that sort of case, if the client was convicted, the father on the daughter probably would have given him prison. That would be my experience. If he didn't give prison, that judge, next time he's up for retention, would have had a hard case to make. I don't see a need to change the system as it is right now.
Thank you. All right, sir, thank you. Ma at the end please go ahead Thank you My name is Megan Morris Please check the mic gray button halfway up the stem There we go Is that better My name is Megan Morris I the Chief Appellate Deputy for the Public Defender
I do this work because of a fundamental belief in humanity that people are not perfect, but that they are redeemable. In a world that is chaotic and scary, I get the impulse to try to do something that makes us feel safer, that makes us feel like we're protecting ourselves, that we're protecting other people. I want to talk a bit about my experience seeing a range of cases from across the state. Senator Weissman, you asked something about the difference between cases where probation is given and cases where it's not. In my experience as an appellate lawyer seeing cases across jurisdictions, I can remember one case where probation was given and the client had a very severe developmental disability where his sort of mental level was similar to the age of the person that he was accused of assaulting. So what I would say is that it's extraordinarily rare if we impose mandatory DOC across the board, we do not allow judges to take into account anyone's individual circumstances like that, where, again, it's going to be something exceptional. It's going to be something that's out of the ordinary, that doesn't fit the common narrative of how these offenses occur. but it feels to me like saying that there's no conceivable circumstance where DOC is not appropriate would be hubris. It would be wrong. I don't know if this has been mentioned yet today because I haven't been here for the whole presentation but there was the news today about Cesar Chavez that he was alleged to have done what we're talking about here and that to me was a reminder that people are complicated, that they contain multitudes, that there is dark and there is light. And if we impose DOC without regard to people's individual circumstances, without letting judges take into account whether a person is extremely remorseful, whether they are terminally ill, whether they are developmentally disabled, then we're doing a disservice to our community.
Thank you. All right. Thank you. Members, any questions for our witnesses? Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for your testimony. I just wanted to hear both the first and last witnesses use the word rare when it comes to probationary sentences for these crimes. I'm looking at the fiscal note and curious whether you either disagree with the Fiscal note, or try to understand what your definition of rare is, fiscal note estimates that of the three crimes that we're talking about within Senate Bill 11, there are 404 convictions total per year across the three crimes, 58 of which are given probation. So that would be 14%. Do you think 14% of sexual crimes against children receiving probation is rare?
Mr. Groog or Ms. Morris. I would say yes, particularly because many of the people who are going to prison are first-time offenders. That doesn't excuse committing a crime this serious, but if you compare it to other kinds of crimes, the percentage of people who go to prison on a first-time offense for a sex offense versus the percentage who get probation, it is a very difficult thing to have a case that falls into that 14%.
Sex crime against a child specifically?
Yes.
Okay. Thank you.
And I would say I don't have the statistics in front of me, right, so I don't know how that fits into what currently happens. What I would say is, you know, I work in the land of appeals, which is mostly folks who have gone to trial. Most cases don't go to trial, right? We have 98%, I think, is kind of the general estimate of cases that are pled out, which means that probably almost all of those probation sentences are one that DEA has agreed to.
Can I speak to that question?
Sure.
Go ahead. I would imagine the case I talked about with the father against the son, that probably would have fallen into the 14% because it was one touch against each daughter years apart. It wouldn't have, sir, because you said that he pled to a lesser offense.
No, no. He didn't plead to a lesser offense.
He was convicted at trial of a harassment, which is an offensive touch, not necessarily sexual. It would have been included in this fiscal note then for the crimes that we're talking about. Sexual assault on a child, F4, sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, F3 or sexual assaults on a child by one in a position of a trust F4.
Yeah, he was charged with the F4, the first one you mentioned.
Okay.
So he probably would have got...
He was charged, but this fiscal notice is talking about convictions for those three crimes.
My point is, if you change it to mandatory prison, he probably would have pled to an
F5 attempt, something he didn't do to have a chance of probation, rather than risk mandatory prison. But he wasn't convicted of one of the three crimes that leads up to the 404 convictions per year that we see in Colorado of felony offenses.
That's correct. He wasn't convicted because he went to trial and he was found, well, it was a hung jury in the DA, 8 to 4 for not guilty.
If we had lost, he would have been convicted of an F4 facing mandatory prison. And then if he was convicted, he probably would have fallen into that 14%. That's my point.
Okay. Mr. Vice Chair, good for now? Yep. All right. Members, other questions of this panel?
Seeing none, thank you for testifying with us. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Before we start calling online names, anyone else in the room who wanted to testify to one on 11 who's not had a chance? All right. I'll call names who are signed up online. These folks have indicated a support position. Oh. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, please come up. Yeah, okay. And if you'll just note your name for the record, ma'am. It's fine if we don't have you on here, but just for later. All right. If you'll hang tight for a moment, I will call a couple names online as well, and we'll come to them after you have your turn. Online, can we please look for Missy Espinoza, Shaq Powers, Sarah Norton Cohn, Loretta Huff. Cody Harrison. Okay, and we'll start in the room. Please go ahead.
Hello again, Chair Weissman and Senate Judiciary Committee. I've spent a lot of time with you guys this week. You've had a few victim bills. I appreciate you hearing me again. And again I know we have two minutes so I not going to read my three testimony And I would just say that a lot of that was things that were covered by Commander Ronnie Durrell from the Douglas County Sheriff Office as well as Jessica Dotter from CDAC So what I'm going to focus my short time on with you is telling you that that one touch, one touch is too much. if we show that you can't have one touch maybe there won't be a second touch or a third touch and in the 30 years that I've been in victim services I've seen a lot of victims that are now adults that had a child that something happened to and while their child isn't having an interview they say to me hey so I've never told anybody this but I was sexually assaulted as a child nothing happened and they lived with that for 30 or 40 or 50 years. And luckily there is a non-profit that helps them called WINGS and I usually would give them that phone number. But it's heartbreaking to see someone who has been through sexual assault as a child that not only didn't get retribution or help, but that they thought it didn't matter. And when you have a 6 or an 8-year-old who says, what they did was bad. Are they going to get in trouble? I can't say yes, they're going to get in trouble. I can say it was bad and it was wrong and you're going to have to wait for X, Y, Z to happen. I think it's really important that we set a precedence and that this is not allowed. We aren't going to let this happen and that we are going to protect our children. And I think that this bill is a way to help us. So I urge you to support Senate Bill 26111.
Thank you for your time. All right, thank you. And ma'am, I think I have it in my notes, but just for the record, could you let us know your name and any affiliation?
Andrea Bradbury, and I am testifying in my own capacity today.
Great, thank you. If you'll please hold, we'll hear from our online witnesses, then we'll go to questions. I'm going to call where I see folks have their camera on.
Sarah Norton-Cohen, please go ahead. My name is Sarah Norton-Kahn, and I'm representing myself, and I'm in support of this bill. I want to tell my story to help legislators understand a child victim has a life sentence. I was raped at the age of 14. I told one person, then I put it in a box. Sorry, this is the first time I've talked about this publicly, so if I could get just a little bit of extra time, it's going to take me a second. I apologize.
Understood, ma'am. Please go ahead when you're ready.
I did not. Thank you. I did not plan on speaking about it ever again. Unfortunately, God had other plans. over the years things came up reminding me that the box was still in the dark corner in 2015 i brought it up with my therapist she pushed me to tell my sister 2019 a friend of mine was raped and i shared my experience with her 2022 i looked him up on the sex offender registry he was convicted of sex assault on a minor one year after he raped me 2023 I googled his name for the first time the stories were unrelated to assault but it was the first time that I heard his voice since my assault I felt like I was 14 again I could not focus I could not read I was failing at my job I could not stop crying. I sought help. I took a break from work. I reported my rape. And after I reported my rape to my therapist, what had happened in detail? He looked at me and said, Sarah, you were trafficked. I told him I was not. It was one night over and over again. I was not. He repeated, I cried. I did not have high hopes, though I thought I could get charges filed. I waited for weeks with no contact from the police. I began investigating it on my own I found excuse me I found the friend that I ran into that night when I was dropped off with an unknown man that friend
that friend remembered running into me and even remembered seeing me with that friend that dropped me off with my rapist I was able to narrow the timeline down to one week I figured out where the apartment was I was even allowed to walk in the actual apartment that it took place in I know this because I looked up the address after I knew for a fact that that was the apartment after waiting a few months I was informed that my case would be placed on hold I was disappointed because the police did not speak to anyone that can validate my story. I did not get the outcome that I wanted, but I'm happier today than I have been in many years. I did not feel as heavy. I know why I acted out as a child. And if I would have known that speaking out, sorry, if I would have known that speaking out would have set me free, I would have spoke out years ago. Thank you to the sponsors of this bill. It is long overdue.
All right. Ma'am, thank you for sharing, given the obvious difficulty of what you've endured. If you would prefer to disconnect from the Zoom, no need to hang around for questions. In the meantime, we'll invite other witnesses. Shaq Powers, please go ahead.
I don't mind being questioned. Sorry.
All right. Thank you. We'll hear from a few more witnesses, then we'll see if the committee has questions. Shaq Powers, please go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee for your time. My name is Shaq Powers, and I'm here as a father and a lifelong Coloradan. when an adult sexually assaults a child, should probation or any amount of freedom, for that matter, still be an option? I do not believe that any amount of freedom is appropriate for those who harm the most vulnerable and innocent among us. Right now in Colorado, for certain sexual assault crimes against children, a person can still receive probation instead of prison this bill changes that for those specific child assault offenses it says prison must be the sentence and I believe that is the right call Children are not in a position to protect themselves from adults They depend on us to protect them and in many of these cases the person who harms them is not a stranger. The CDC says about 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child or family knows and trusts. That's not just assault, that's betrayal by a parent, a coach, a teacher, a caregiver, or another trusted adult. That kind of harm doesn't just disappear. Sexual abuse causes lasting damage to a child's health and well-being. It affects mental health safety, trust, and development for years and often for life. This bill isn't just symbolic. The fiscal note shows that on average 56 people a year are convicted of the crimes covered by this bill and currently they may not be sent to prison. I understand there's concerns about cost but some things are bigger than cost. This committee is deciding what message Colorado sends and that message should be clear. If you sexually assault a child, you don't deserve any level of freedom. And the message to the victims should be clear as well, that though they could not trust the people of alleged trust who perpetrated these crimes against them, they can trust this committee to advocate for those too young to be able to advocate for themselves. A child carries this type of harm for years off in life. The law should carry real weight as well. Please vote yes on Senate Bill 26-111. All right, thank you. Loretta Huff,
please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Loretta Huff. I'm speaking as an individual, a mother and a grandmother. I'm here to speak in strong support of SB 26111. I'll try to keep my comments shorter than planned because I agree with so much that's already been said. Ensuring that individuals convicted of assaulting a child face mandatory prison time rather than the possibility of probation reflects the severity of these crimes. When a child is harmed, accountability must be clear and consistent. SB 26111 will help restore public confidence in the justice system. Families and survivors deserve to know that the law treats these offenses with the seriousness they demand. Even if the parole requirements are strict, a survivor is helped by knowing that at least for a time, the person who sexually assaulted them cannot harm them again. This is not about removing judicial discretion broadly. It's about setting a firm baseline where the stakes are highest are children. It affirms that protecting children is a fundamental responsibility of our legal system. I urge you to support SB 26111. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Okay, thank you. Missy Espinoza, if you can hear us, feel free to activate your camera. Please go ahead.
Yeah, I'm not going to activate my camera. And I think it's silly that you prioritize people that activate their cameras. But anyway, Missy Espinosa representing myself and speaking up for God's children. Do not touch them. Period. We demand you pass this bill. Four seconds. the courts to incarcerate these monsters. Stop allowing them to put them back into our communities. We don't want them among us free to prey on more children. Build more prisons. Do it. This legislative body has damn near decriminalized child rape and trying to decriminalize child sex trafficking. We saw you try to do it. We need you to do the right thing. And I don't want to hear that there's no money for it, you pass unfunded mandates every single week. Maybe don't send millions and millions to your NGOs. Try that. All right. Thank you. Cody Harrison,
please go ahead. Feel free to activate your camera if you like.
hello my uh my name is cody arison i represent myself and my young victim cousin military members know about jody well in the case of my blood jody the man who was with my cousin's then wife forced himself on this young girl who couldn't speak yet her life has been filled with with distrust pain and fear there's no act that steals a child's soul faster than these acts i personally support hanging these people than in town square asking they don't get probation after our legislative body has denied mandatory minimums is the least we can do for victims one victim is too many and the perpetrators must be punished colorado is viewed as the most favorable state for pedophiles jeffrey epstein has alleged ties to diana to get so i suppose it's not a surprise that these bills have been ignored children victims are not and should never be a political issue megan's law exists so we can take care of it if our body won't The American people are tired of the LGBTQ plus population using the plus to repopulate pedophilia through children that aren't theirs. I end the rest of my time.
All right. Members, any questions for any of our witnesses? Seeing none in the room, thank you all for testifying with us. All right. Can we confirm no other witnesses pending on the Zoom? We have a few more. Okay. Let's please connect anybody we've not previously heard from. All right, Ms. Rush, we're seeing you first. Please go ahead with your testimony.
20 felony counts. Extreme mental harm. Sexual and God knows what else. Autistic to. Transitioned partially or more by a school district. D 49 by counselors who only know how to gender affirm they don know how to give mental health help so I know Let me just read this 1 million women are estimated to have been raped in 12 months prior and an estimated 443 of those are 12 or older CDC, U.S. government statistics. One in four girls are sexually abused before 18. One in six boys before 18. One in five children are solicited sexually while on the Internet. Seventy percent of all reported sexual assaults occur to children under 17. Thirty nine million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America. Thirty to forty percent of them are abused by family, 50 percent by outsiders they know, and 40 percent by larger and friend children. 20% of these children are abused before the age of eight. 30% of them never tell anyone. Never tell anyone because they're too humiliated. This is in America. We are talking millions of people we don't even know about because probably 30% never tell. My family had a situation and all they got was mis abused further by the over sexualization of the horrible, horrible school policies to indoctrinate minors. This this kind of a thing is not rare. The people that said, what was it, restorative? What we need is these people who do this, whether they're sick or not, to be removed from society long enough that the victim, which doesn't have any rights anymore, can have a life once they recover because the victim is the one that got assaulted. Everybody's worried about restoring the guy that did it. What about that child who might not ever be normal again because of all of this hyper sexualization and all these stupid bills? I studied the Basel Bas art trafficking, the whole, you know, eight day course. A thousand children a day are trafficked and abused. And we failed to pass that bill last week when we stayed all night for three bills. And every one of them got shot down. Dogs, cats and wolves get better treatment than women and children. And it's got to stop because a lot of our families have been robbed and raped and destroyed. And we don't ever get them back. Nobody recovers totally from this. and this state is a gulag i have written on over 250 bills and i'll write on a thousand more but this is criminal and i'm ready to make these people be put away from communities and the illegal people in this nation are probably at 20 or more million people many of whom don't
I've allowed you to run over time. I'm going to ask you to conclude right there. Thank you. Patty McKeeman, please go ahead.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Patty McKernan, and I live in Centennial, testifying on behalf of myself, although I am a board director for Protect Kids Colorado. I thought I was testifying on a bill to punish convicted child sex offenders excuse me However I quickly realizing I testifying on a bill that puts truth on trial i would like to see truth be legislated nothing would make me happier i've heard multiple testimonies of situations where people were wrongly convicted that is a problem we've all been witnessing a 70 year old gold star mom with not even a traffic ticket being kept in prison and mistreated while killers are let out on parole i would like to ask all of you who are bringing unfair convictions as the reason why you oppose this bill to work with your legislators to draft a new bill that addresses injustices in our legal system. When it comes to convictions of actual sexual molestation of children, punishment is necessary. The child is permanently damaged. Sexual intercourse was designed to be a permanent relationship between a husband and wife. The imprint on the body is permanent. Perhaps the sex offender is not intentionally harming the child, but the harm is there. We must have deterrence. I'd be happy with mandatory instruction of theology of the body, but that is not constitutional. So let's make prison time mandatory and deter sex offenders from victimizing children. Our children are under attack in so many directions. They are trafficked, they are raped, they are aborted, they are abandoned. We must stop this. I am grateful for the mandatory prison sentence to change the orientation of this crime, protect the kids in Colorado, support this bill. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Meshke, please go ahead.
Chair, members of the committee, thank you.
Did Ms. Meshke fall off the Zoom there? Okay. Confirming no one else on the Zoom waiting to testify? All right. Last call for anybody in the room who wanted to testify any position on SB 111. All right. Oh, here, maybe she's back. All right. Ms. Meshke, we lost you. We lost you for a second.
Please go ahead with your comments. I've had one technical problem after another this year. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin Meshke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. I'm asking for your yes vote on SB 26111 because child sexual abuse is a lifetime sentence for young victims. So the life of a perpetrator should reflect that impact. Sexual assault of a child is so severe and reprehensible that it should result in castration before lifetime incarceration or death. But if we refuse to protect kids with those warranted consequences, we should at the very least have mandatory incarceration and make release dependent on how their sentence actually plays out and not on the basis of a sympathetic judge or enough money to creatively evade incarceration. Beyond the statutory changes in this bill, we should all be concerned about the per day cost of prison beds listed in the fiscal note because it costs the state triple what it costs private prisons, and this discrepancy should be addressed and resolved. I also think we need to move back to a working prison system so overall costs are reduced, but also because work is necessary and is the best rehabilitation. When similar bills have been killed the last few years, I have heard testimony from and about brave children whose abusers, some of whom were their own parents, as we heard a previous testifier say, never served their sentences and victimized more children while on probation? How do traumatized children move on if their abuser doesn't have to pay for the crime committed against them? How do we expect them to process the lack of value communicated by a commuted or probationally sentence? Part of their healing and the healing of their devastated families and communities must be acknowledging the harm by holding the guilty part accountable in a real way. Instead of excusing abuse we must move toward more accountability I know many at the legislature and on this committee do not agree with mandatory or indiscriminate sentencing but we must do away with moving those who sexually abuse children directly to probation So I ask for your yes vote on SB 26111. Thank you.
Thank you. Members, questions for any of our witnesses? We're seeing no questions. We have one more witness. Okay, we are seeing no questions here. So Ms. Rush, Ms. Meshke, Ms. McKernan, you are free to disconnect and we will try to get our last witness connected here. All right, Ms. Aragon, if you can hear us, please go ahead.
Okay. Can you hear me?
We're hearing you loud and clear. Please continue. Okay. Thank you. My name is Lisa Aragon. I'm the founder of Concord for Me Limited.
We're a nonprofit. I stand before you as both a survivor who spent six years rebuilding my life and for the past three years someone with boots on the ground. I bridge the gap between abuse and addiction in our community with the CPS and also victim services and safe houses. We often see harsher consequences for nonviolent offenses while serious crimes against vulnerable children can result in reduced sentencing, including probation. And to me, this sends a message. as of today that are 19,405 registered sex offenders in Colorado, and that's including 2,234 who have failed to register or have a history of failing to register. And just recently in Arapahoe County, a 39-year-old massage therapist was charged with sexual assault on a child involving minor clients, including children with special needs. He was accused of secretly recording both adults and children and was released on bond. Investigators are still searching for additional victims. So I ask those who may be against this bill, what would you do if this was your child or even real? And then you are told to trust the system, trust an assessment, trust a decision, only for that individual to be released back into the community while you are left paying for therapy, attorney fees, carrying the cost of what was done to you or your child. That is not accountability, that is a gap in protection. Are our responses aligned with the level of harm and risk to children? Yes, allegations must be taken seriously, and determining the truth is the role of the courts, not this bill. This bill is about accountability when harm has been proven. Abuse is not confusing. Abuse is not a mistake, and it is a choice. Just like addiction, you cannot force someone to change. They have to want it. But when it comes to crimes against children, you cannot place the burden of that change on the safety of the next potential victim. Accountability is prevention. And right now, though, our courts are reactive, especially in protection order hearings and child abuse cases. Responding after harm has already occurred. This bill gives us the opportunity to shift toward prevention. These are laws in place for protection orders, but without consistent enforcement and follow-through, those protections do not always translate into safety. A lot of the times, some of these cases that I've worked with personally and the family courts are often protective parents that are left carrying the burden of proving harm while systems are not aligned. We are seeing increased risk of fatal outcomes when protective parents remain in unsafe situations to shield their children. often taking on harm themselves in the absence of stronger system protection. While victim services are constantly advocating, training, protecting, and educating, we are still left offending against systems that prioritize redirection for heinous times instead of accountability. Speaking from lived experience, I'm not thinking of going on my time, but yeah. As a mother, I support this bill, and I was really urged to support this, too.
All right, ma'am. Thank you. Members, questions for our witness? We're seeing no questions here in the room. Thank you for testifying with us today. All right, that was our last witness, either on Zoom or in the room. We'll close the witness phase. We'll invite Senator Rich back to the table. Senator Rich, are there amendments you'd like us to consider for 111?
No, sir.
Committee, do we have amendments for 111? Seeing that amendment phase is closed. Senator, we'll invite you to make any wrap-up comments you'd like.
Okay. First off, I want to thank everyone for their time and for being here. Regardless of which side you are on this bill, I do appreciate everyone's input. I'm going to just reiterate that I do believe this bill is significant because allowing sex offenders to be placed on probation can create opportunities for them to reoffend. And I believe that as legislators we have a duty not to just pass laws but to uphold justice, to ensure that our legal system does not re-traumatize survivors, to make sure that our statutes reflect a modern understanding of trauma and consent. Protecting children is a critical responsibility of the judicial system, and appropriate penalties must be imposed on offenders There a saying by a Scottish philosopher Adam Smith mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent We have a real chance today to prove to the people of Colorado that we see these children and that these children matter and that we are not a pro-criminal state. I'm asking for an aye vote on this bill, and I thank you for your consideration.
All right. Thank you. Members, the motion would be to appropriations. I'll invite a motion, then we'll see if there are any closing comments from members of the committee. Senator Samoa Wilson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Rich, on the fiscal note on, I don't know what page.
Senator, I'll tell you what. Go ahead and make the motion, and then just to get a motion on the table to the appropriations committee, then go ahead and make a closing comment. try to avoid questions at this stage, and I do invite comments, though. But the motion is yours if you like.
I move Senate Bill 26-111 to appropriations.
111. All right. Proper motion. Now, closing comments are fair game.
Senator Isamore Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. I'm looking at Table 2, Bravo, in the fiscal notes. And I notice as we go through the years that the prison ADP impact is increasing. You know, in economics, we talk about short-term, long-term, and we also know about incentives. And here we're increasing the consequences and penalties. Would you not say that it is very plausible that these numbers would actually decrease because criminals on the margins would start to realize there's penalties
and there would be actually a decrease in these costs We generally not going to get into Q with a sponsor in closing statements but Senator Rich if you like to comment briefly on what Senator Zemore Wilson has said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I think that we did hear from someone who testified that one of the attorneys that didn't agree with Table 2B and that they didn't believe that it was correct and that they are not going to report in years only applies to offenders after July 1 of 2026. I guess personally, I think if offenders knew that the result of whatever they do to a child would be greater than just parole, I do believe those numbers would go down. But that's about all I can say about that.
Very good. Any other closing comments? This is for closing comments, Senator, yes. Go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, you know, I'm a parent. I can't imagine my child, someone victimizing my child. The mama bear just comes out. We are to protect our children. We are to protect the vulnerable. And as legislators, we are to secure people's freedoms. And that's our job. And when I taught at the Air Force Academy in economics, I always told my students, incentives matter. Incentives matter. This puts in call it incentives and punishment How do you value life if you devalue justice Anyone who violates a child should go to prison. That is such an incredible betrayal of trust. And then when you talk about accountability is prevention. And then when you talk about incentives, when you increase punishment, crimes do decrease. That means less victims. That means less trauma and less cost for mental health. And we always hear in these chambers about the mental health crisis. We can mitigate some of that with this bill, and I am a yes vote on this bill. Thank you.
Thank you, members. Any other closing comments? All right. Seeing none, the motion's been properly made to the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. Jensen, please call the roll. Senators, Benavides.
No. Carson.
Yes. Henriksen.
No. Wallace.
No. Zamora Wilson.
Yes. Roberts? Aye. Mr. Chair? No.
It is 3 to 4. The bill is not referred to appropriations. Senator Wallace? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to postpone indefinitely Senate Bill 111.
By reverse roll call, sir. Proper motion to P.I. by reverse roll call. Seeing no objection, will P.I.
by a reverse roll call. All right. Members, thank you for the work today. That concludes our agenda. I'll update everybody on the calendar for next week. Until then, Judiciary is adjourned.