House committee endorses amendment that would allow judges to deny bail to dangerous defendants

Measure must still clear 2 more committees before a floor vote

SANTA FE — The House Judiciary Committee on Monday approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow judges to deny bail to dangerous defendants before trial.

The proposed amendment, approved 7-2 by the committee, also would prohibit pretrial detention of nondangerous defendants solely because of a financial inability to post a money or property bond. The Senate approved the proposed constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, last week.

The measure still must clear two more House committees — the Regulatory and Public Affairs Committee and the Appropriations and Finance Committee — before a final vote on the House floor can take place.

House Speaker Don Tripp, R-Socorro, said his referral of the proposed amendment to three committees wasn’t an attempt to kill the measure. House Republicans have accused Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen — whom the GOP refers to as the “Senate boss” — of effectively killing Housepassed crime legislation by referring the bills to three committees, including the Senate Finance Committee.

Tripp referred the proposed constitutional amendment to the House committees on Friday — three days after the Senate passed the measure. He had referred two other proposed amendments dealing with bail to two commit- tees each.

The speaker’s political action committee has received a $2,500 donation from a bail bond company, but Tripp said in an interview that he hasn’t decided how he will vote on the proposed amendment. He said, however, that he is concerned about the provision that would prohibit pretrial detention of nondangerous defendants solely because of a financial inability to post a money or property bond. He said judges already have the power to release such defendants before trial.

The bail industry opposes the proposed amendment because of the provision dealing with nondangerous poor defendants. It says the proposed amendment would lead to a collapse of the industry and that government — at taxpayer expense — would have to take over its job of making sure defendants show up for court.

Supporters of the proposed amendment say the state’s bail system should be based on the risk of defendants, not their financial resources, and that many defendants are being held before trial — at taxpayer expense — because they can’t post relatively small amounts of bail set by judges.

Pending on the House floor Monday was a competing proposed constitutional amendment that includes the provision on dangerous defendants, but not the provision on nondangerous indigent defendants.

Any proposed amendment approved by both the House and Senate would have to be approved by voters in November. Currently, nearly all defendants are entitled under state law to reasonable bail.