HB0198

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker argues that existing case law already sufficiently governs evidence admissibility in these cases and believes the bill is unnecessary. He expresses concern that the legislation could lead to convictions based on prior bad acts rather than specific offenses.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes existing case law has already established fair procedures for introducing evidence, and this bill would overturn those precedents. He warns that allowing prior bad acts as primary evidence risks convicting people based on who they are rather than what they did.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill as well-crafted legislation that levels the playing field by allowing evidence of a defendant's prior sexual misconduct under the same conditions used for victims. He trusts district court judges to act as gatekeepers with appropriate safeguards.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes making evidentiary decisions is the role of the courts, not the legislature. He argues that existing case law has successfully handled these issues for years.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill to ensure consistency with an existing statute regarding victims' prior conduct. He argues that since the legislature already regulates evidence for victims, it should do the same for perpetrators to level the playing field.