• PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- Victims of the most serious crimes in South Dakota would be assured the right to testify at sentencing under a legislative panel's change to a bill on juvenile homicide offenders.
• Lynette Johnson, the widow of slain state correctional officer Ronald "RJ" Johnson, said her family had to endure days of court testimony before finally getting the chance to speak about how they were affected by the crime committed by Rodney Berget and Eric Robert.
• Johnson asked members of a negotiating committee on Tuesday to put the right into law.
• "Please, do not ever let the voices of the victims go unheard," she said.
• The bill was introduced to bring South Dakota law in line with the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life sentences for juveniles. The 2012 Miller v. Alabama ruling prohibited life-without-parole sentences for crimes committed by anyone younger than 18 years old.
• South Dakota's bill makes juvenile homicide sentences discretionary and allows the possibility of parole. But versions passed by the Senate and House differed on what factors must be considered by judges sentencing in all felony cases.
• A compromise reached by the negotiating committee said judges must consider four factors: aggravating circumstances, mitigating circumstances, background information and victim's impact, but it limited the requirement to the more serious Class A, B and C felonies such as murder and first-degree manslaughter.
• The amended version must pass both chambers.
• Rep. Mike Stevens, R-Yankton, said judges can still choose to accept victim's statements in lower felony cases, but it would be at their discretion.
• "The courts have always done that, and I don't see that changing," Stevens said.
• A House-amended version of the bill had limited the factors to aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley asked the committee to restore the other two factors.
• Jackley said the guidelines are the same used by judges at sentencing in South Dakota death penalty cases, so their constitutionality has been tested in higher

(Continued on page 28)