Bill Summary: The proposal defines the process to be followed for a crime laboratory report to be received into evidence at any trial for criminal prosecution.

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUND
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on Other State Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


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

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on FTE	0	0	0

☐ Estimated Total Net Effect on All funds expected to exceed $100,000 savings or (cost).

☐ Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund expected to exceed $100,000 (cost).

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011
Local Government	$0	$0	$0

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator assume the proposed legislation would have no fiscal impact on the courts.

Officials from the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) assume the proposal increase the cost to the public defender system for several reasons:

The 7 day or waive request to depose will necessitate defense lawyers to automatically request depositions in all such cases because that is insufficient time to review the information fully, as well as in appropriate matters consult with an outside expert about the findings to determine whether the information is of importance to a trial or not.

In order to use the deposition at trial, it must be recorded. Recorded depositions cost more than regular depositions, which will increase the costs to the public defender system.

In order to use the deposition at trial, the client must be present for the deposition (per his constitutional right of confrontation), which will increase transportation costs to sheriff’s departments for each of these depositions.

SPD assumes the proposal would result in a minimal impact to the public defender system.

Oversight assumes the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) could absorb the costs of the proposed legislation within existing resources. Oversight assumes any significant increase in the workload of the SPD would be reflected in future budget requests.

Officials from the Office of Prosecution Services did not respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact.

No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.

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