AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 1 of section 12.1-32-02 and subdivision h of subsection 5 of section 39-08-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to sentencing alternatives and the sentencing of a defendant to an addiction treatment program for a violation of driving under the influence; and to provide for application.
Summary
HB 1313 expands and clarifies North Dakota sentencing options for criminal defendants. It amends the general sentencing statute to list additional alternatives a court may impose, including placement in treatment-oriented settings and participation in specialty courts or programs such as drug court, veterans treatment dockets, restorative justice programs, and mental health court. The bill also reorganizes and updates the sentencing language for commitment to treatment programs for alcoholism, drug addiction, or mental disease or defect, while preserving existing limits on sentence length and other sentencing rules.
The bill further amends the DUI sentencing statute to allow a court, when an addiction evaluation shows treatment is needed and imprisonment or placement is otherwise required, to order the defendant into an appropriate licensed addiction treatment program. Time spent in treatment must count toward the defendant’s sentence of imprisonment or placement. The bill also states that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation cannot be ordered to pay for treatment in a private facility. The act applies only to court orders and criminal sentences imposed after its effective date.
Impact
HB 1313 changes two sections of the North Dakota Century Code: the general sentencing alternatives statute and the DUI sentencing provision. It broadens the range of treatment-based sentencing options available to courts, expressly incorporates specialty court and restorative justice programs into sentencing law, and authorizes credit toward incarceration or placement for time spent in court-ordered addiction treatment in DUI cases. It also limits state responsibility for private treatment costs by prohibiting orders requiring the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to fund such treatment.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 89-0 and the Senate 47-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. The absence of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials suggests little visible opposition or public dispute around the measure.
Contention
No significant contention is evident in the available record. The only potentially sensitive policy point is the balance between treatment and punishment in DUI sentencing, including whether treatment time should count as sentence credit and whether the state should bear any treatment costs. However, the unanimous votes suggest these issues did not generate meaningful opposition during floor consideration.