[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6329791,"mediaKeyId","2315624-bab1350b8594d7459dec79d6f5bed86f","parentId",2315624,"title","SB 14 35 on conservation easement compensation tabled after amendments and objections","audioSeconds",239,"startMs",2122000,"endMs",2361000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315624-bab1350b8594d7459dec79d6f5bed86f&start=2122&end=2361","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315624-bab1350b8594d7459dec79d6f5bed86f/thumbnail_2122000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6329791/Virginia/SB-14-35-on-conservation-easement-compensation-tabled-after-amendments-and-objections","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329791-4a502da746b025c84c6edaf0fb195432/orig.mp4?Expires=1770955134&Signature=chuG8QgdcfSuIxq5NQWdpxpRikGJVUnpi8qFd~zheRXsy7zixcdd8lvHYGaxKYjDyI6NgPCuvpu66nyqMDqRgKRGRguZWYacOg3coX~s--VHaLM1Zb7f1O734Q9N1GJZ7v~WMRB6zHVOQmlrR0UYxbfHlaXLa02lvxsIIsDufLDbl~92-tSHVhmG-EalyBt52dcjGafOQ-JLPZserPlZOUkehQ5cJtHl0oMArA1j2khlgSy3US4dvHtWpzQJ8q0NDfIMTWxZE4ZUbIx2kXmU15gmvtMPkkMH00aEoASembAV~kbuX2F1jUpGE1Z2NwxJNrpQyx3qZOt-4FaWAK-uFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State of Virginia","date","2025-02-14T00:00:00Z","article","Lede: Senate Bill 14 35, a measure addressing compensation and technical requirements for acquisitions affecting conservation easements, was laid on the table by the Courts of Justice committee in a roll-call vote of 15–5.

Nut graf: Sponsor Senator Perry and supporters described the bill as protecting open-space and conservation easements by ensuring that entities acquiring easements compensate the locality and Commonwealth for tax benefits foregone. The bill drew opposition in committee that led to the motion to table after floor-line amendments and further discussion about scope, definitions, and exemptions for utilities.

Body: Senator Perry said the bill responds to concerns about conversion or acquisition of longstanding conservation easements and that compensation should reflect the tax benefits the locality and Commonwealth forewent. Counsel reported a substitute that added language specifying compensation proportional to the land or interest condemned and made technical changes throughout the bill. The sponsor also proffered line amendments to address objections, including an exemption for natural-gas utilities tied to statutory definitions.

Despite the offered amendments, a motion to lay the bill on the table was moved and seconded and the committee voted 15–5 to table SB 14 35. Committee members who opposed tabling said they preferred to proceed with amended text; proponents of tabling said additional drafting and local-government input were needed.

Ending: The bill is tabled in committee and will not advance from this meeting; sponsors and staff indicated potential to revise language and return in a future committee meeting or address issues in conference if resurrected later in the process.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Courts Of Justice Friday, Feb 14, 2025 1:25 PM - 2:07 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 14 35, which would affect compensation and procedures for acquiring conservation easements and related land interests, was tabled in committee by a 15–5 vote after sponsors offered line amendments and members raised concerns.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature VA, Virginia","taxId",77687,"location","Virginia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6329797,"Committee approves substitute for SB 10 13 adding notice requirement for certain affirmatives defenses",75,1049000,1124000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315624-bab1350b8594d7459dec79d6f5bed86f&start=1049&end=1124","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315624-bab1350b8594d7459dec79d6f5bed86f/thumbnail_1049000.jpg","/articles/6329797/Virginia/Committee-approves-substitute-for-SB-10-13-adding-notice-requirement-for-certain-affirmatives-defenses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329797-f8f030eef1f9e60ca01453d8792b2fec/orig.mp4?Expires=1770955134&Signature=bRjSt7DP8CK~MQc1UdwH-k3yYGPS2bDMI5cTfZE-V~53F4ZU6mJfcftnUQXrCA-ho3IEQEK0ZT4Zk7ETzCwt0BfUOTVpubYDB9x4dca52xfV8X0u8rML06-gcPDgHNrTxAF0uNW8-iOddIDmERF6HejJI3-s00gsqIgIWerPSbJ9fi5qPRiMbNOF8oSj5pStxdw-HiOmT0MORYbaVlNGx1eXDUVnLScrFtJ5wug8tIFxCjv70rVbQXaVH2Ou7RBJIFoPhErrdZSWFjFs7lqOSe8gj2CwoA7CW-EtGbbhsNjDnABcmqCoiDHCPzCocaKDqqqfYY-8ePEocnfix0HUCQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lede: The Courts of Justice criminal subcommittee approved a substitute for Senate Bill 10 13 that creates a procedure requiring advance notice when a defendant intends to assert an affirmative defense based on a diagnosed mental illness, neurocognitive disorder or developmental disability. The substitute was reported by the committee on a roll call of 14–5.

Nut graf: Sponsors and counsel said the substitute adopts an existing notice framework drawn from § 19.2‑271.6 and applies it to cases where a defendant intends to offer evidence that their behavior was the result of a qualifying disorder when charged with assault and battery on a law-enforcement officer. Counsel told the committee the substitute seeks to align timing and procedural safeguards while allowing courts discretion to grant continuances or exclude untimely evidence.

Body: Counsel Troy Patrasher told members the substitute adds language taken from the notice provision in § 19.2‑271.6. Under the substitute, a defendant who intends to assert the affirmative defense must give notice to the Commonwealth at least 60 days before trial in circuit court, or at least 14 days if trial is set within 21 days of the defendant's last court appearance. Patrasher said that if notice is not given and the defense is nonetheless proffered, the court may, in its discretion, allow the Commonwealth a continuance or, under appropriate circumstances, bar the defendant from presenting that evidence. Any continuance granted under this provision would not be counted for speedy-trial purposes.

Members asked whether the substitute changes the standard of proof or the class of admissible evidence. Delegate Obenshein asked counsel what evidence would be admissible under the change that was not already admissible under § 19.2‑271.6. Counsel and a committee member explained the difference in application stems from the target offense: § 19.2‑271.6 historically applies to specific-intent crimes and the substitute extends a notice procedure to an offense (assault and battery) that is generally treated as a general-intent crime, thereby making the affirmative-defense notice procedure available in these cases.

The motion to report the substitute was moved by Elliot Watson and seconded by Delegate Simon (as recorded in the transcript); the substitute was reported on a roll call of 14 yes, 5 no.

Ending: The substitute advances to the next stage in the General Assembly process; counsel indicated the provision was modeled on existing statutory language and emphasized the court’s discretion over admissibility and potential continuances.","The committee reported a substitute for Senate Bill 10 13 that establishes a notice procedure when a defendant intends to use an affirmative defense based on a diagnosed mental illness, neurocognitive disorder, or developmental disability; the substitute passed 14–5.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6329801,"Courts of Justice committee advances multiple bills; final votes range from unanimous to contested",420,576000,996000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315624-bab1350b8594d7459dec79d6f5bed86f&start=576&end=996","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315624-bab1350b8594d7459dec79d6f5bed86f/thumbnail_576000.jpg","/articles/6329801/Virginia/Courts-of-Justice-committee-advances-multiple-bills-final-votes-range-from-unanimous-to-contested","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329801-21b17b5f68f5384e0e1935ea366ac561/orig.mp4?Expires=1770955134&Signature=LzcSZkRUWTCoaZXdmtqCALQRpvewiz3iuNcXOvWZMIjhZFG9UgiqelDl5OrprAb2nPZaAiyNoH~8mKhOjXuPdVXJRHCPes1VzEmfe0SxY1eGw~RhdJRSqXNG9YYKSxeZ3JifGJa43nOcS3SH14Z7r~Em9RbKtVLpisbIdICWsDi~TeUGvkcxo7yHp9FZBxOoeD6-HBA55s-Om3CusvIG-GR--0DO9yJe7G4ui93sXTNZzLzH22vjIH2sY66xyTNlpyGo3GI3SnpXedHejGZbFimbXyGUTNtHEkks3Aaz0oSjwqYKDhpqg8eMQ5B-yk6ggb2RQOFRGcNy6y7Q9V8yEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Courts of Justice Committee and its subcommittees reported a slate of criminal-justice and judicial-administration bills during the session recorded in the transcript. Several bills were carried in uncontested blocks; others were pulled for separate roll-call votes. Final tallies recorded in committee minutes ranged from unanimous approval to narrow margins, and one bill was tabled.

Why it matters: The committee handles a high volume of legislation affecting criminal penalties, evidence procedures, data sharing, forfeiture use, and property and conservation easements. Committee reporting moves bills to the next stage of consideration in the General Assembly and signals likely floor debate and conference work.

Most significant outcomes
- A block of seven uncontested bills was reported by the criminal subcommittee by a voice/roll result recorded as \"about 16 to 0.\" Those bills were described in committee as including changes to motor-vehicle and youth-licensing enforcement, reckless-driving reductions, expanded exemptions for fentanyl-detection paraphernalia, protections for sports officials, drone-flight prohibitions over critical infrastructure, underage possession of tobacco/hemp penalties, and electronic-records service-of-process clarifications. (Transcript references: Senate Bill 7 50; Senate Bill 8 47; Senate Bill 9 24; Senate Bill 9 86; Senate Bill 12 72; Senate Bill 9 13 95; Senate Bill 14 12.)
- Senate Bill 14 16 (traffic infraction for failing to stop for pedestrians; misdemeanor if resulting in serious injury or death to a vulnerable road user) was pulled from the block and reported by roll call 15 to 3.
- Senate Bill 10 13 (substitute) providing a notice procedure when a defendant intends to assert an affirmative defense based on a diagnosed mental or neurocognitive disorder was reported on a roll call of 14 to 5.
- Senate Bill 11 91 (criminal sentencing commission data contribution to the Virginia Longitudinal Data System, with deidentification retained and commission control of data) initially reported 15 to 4 and, after a motion to reconsider, later reported 16 to 4.
- Senate Bill 13 24 (misdemeanors related to obstructing access to health-care facilities and restricted approaches near facility entrances) was reported 12 to 8 and, after reconsideration, later reported 12 to 9.
- Senate Bill 14 20 (substitute clarifying use of forfeited property and proceeds for law-enforcement equipment/training and restricting personal use) was reported 20 to 0.
- Senate Bill 11 58 (committee amendment reported) and companion bills in the second subcommittee were reported unanimously or by large margins (e.g., a block of four bills reported 20 to 0; one bill reported 21 to 0 after floor amendments in committee).
- Senate Bill 14 35 (conservation-easement compensation amendments) was laid on the table by roll call, 15 to 5, after discussion and proffered line amendments.

What committee members discussed and directed
Committee members and counsel noted technical drafting changes, conforming language to other bills, and enactment-clause timing to harmonize companion legislation. Where localities raised concerns (for example, on language in an acquisition/plat requirement), sponsors and staff indicated continued work on amendments and technical fixes prior to final floor action or conference. A number of bills carried enactment clauses or sunset provisions that committee members flagged for alignment with companion legislation.

Next steps
Bills reported by the committee proceed to the next stage of the General Assembly process (full committee or floor) as recorded. Several items were left for further drafting or conference committee work; one bill (Senate Bill 14 35) was tabled in committee pending further consideration or negotiation.

Votes at a glance (selected items from transcript with committee roll-call results)
- Senate Bill 7 50; Senate Bill 8 47; Senate Bill 9 24; Senate Bill 9 86; Senate Bill 12 72; Senate Bill 9 13 95; Senate Bill 14 12 — reported in an uncontested block (reported \"about 16 to 0\").
- Senate Bill 14 16 — reported 15 to 3 after being pulled from the block.
- Senate Bill 10 13 (substitute) — reported 14 to 5.
- Senate Bill 11 91 — initially reported 15 to 4; after reconsideration later reported 16 to 4.
- Senate Bill 13 24 — initially reported 12 to 8; after reconsideration later reported 12 to 9.
- Senate Bill 14 20 (substitute) — reported 20 to 0.
- Senate Bill 14 35 — laid on the table, 15 to 5.

This summary is based on the committee transcript records of motions, substitutes, and roll calls recorded at the times noted in the official transcript. The committee referenced model and statutory sections when describing bill changes, and counsel read statutory cross-references and notice periods for bills that amend existing proof or procedure requirements.","The Courts of Justice committee reported scores of criminal-justice and civil-procedure bills across two panels, approving many by voice or unanimous roll call while several measures drew contested roll-call votes or were tabled.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

SB 14 35 on conservation easement compensation tabled after amendments and objections

Committee approves substitute for SB 10 13 adding notice requirement for certain affirmatives defenses

Courts of Justice committee advances multiple bills; final votes range from unanimous to contested