Provide for attorneys to appear remotely
HB 116 aimed to allow attorneys, particularly public defenders, to appear remotely in court proceedings. The bill would have required all courts to establish a consistent process for these remote appearances. Public defenders would have been permitted to appear remotely for "nonsubstantive hearings," such as arraignments or bond hearings, where the case's final outcome isn't decided. However, a court could still order an attorney to appear in person if there was "good cause," such as a lack of technological resources, and provided advance notice.
Bill status
died
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Dec 2024
Committee Review
Feb 2025
House Passage
Jan 2025
Senate Passage
Apr 2025
Governor
Introduced Dec 27, 2024
Last action May 22, 2025
Maddy AI version diff · 6 comparisons
What changed between versions
HB0116_1(8).pdf
→
HB0116_2(7).pdf
·
3 edits
MINOR
The bill underwent significant formatting and structural reorganization, including a change in the bill number from HB 116.1 to HB0116.2. Substantively, a new mandatory requirement was added requiring attorneys appearing remotely to use a camera to appear onscreen, replacing a previous sentence that allowed remote appearances without this specific visual mandate. The definitions section was also restructured to clarify how remote appearances and nonsubstantive hearings are categorized.
Scope change
The scope of the bill's applicability to remote appearances was narrowed by adding a specific onscreen camera requirement for attorneys, while the overall list of nonsubstantive hearings remained consistent.
REQUIREMENT
Added a mandatory requirement that attorneys appearing remotely must use a camera to appear onscreen.
TECHNICAL
Reorganized the bill's header information, changing the bill number from HB 116.1 to HB0116.2.
DEFINITION
Restructured the definitions section to renumber subsections and clarify the relationship between remote appearance rules and nonsubstantive hearing categories.
Floor votes · Senate Apr 29, 2025 · House Jan 22, 2025
How they voted
30–20
Passed
Total votes 50
Apr 29, 2025
D
Democratic18
88% Nay
R
Republican32
87% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
37
Key actions
4
Committee
4
Amendments
1
Apr 29, 2025
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (30-20)
senate
Feb 26, 2025
Amended
(S) Tabled in Committee - (S) Judiciary
upper
Feb 18, 2025
Committee
(S) Referred to Committee - (S) Judiciary
upper
Jan 22, 2025
House · Passed
House Vote: pass (73-27)
house
Jan 16, 2025
Lower · Passed
(H) Committee Report - (H) Judiciary
lower
Jan 16, 2025
Lower · Passed
(H) Committee Executive Action - (H) Judiciary
lower
Dec 30, 2024
Committee
(H) Referred to Committee - (H) Judiciary
lower
Dec 27, 2024
Introduced
(H) Introduced
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Valerie Moore
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about HB 116
Scope: MT
Hi! I can help you understand HB 116. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline