Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/02/2001 05:17 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 210-STAT. OF LIMITATIONS:SEXUAL ASSAULT/ABUSE
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, bill sponsor, testified that HB 210
removes the statute of limitations on felony sexual assault
involving penetration. Currently, only sexual abuse of a minor and
murder have no statute of limitations and HB 210 adds sexual
assault to the list of extreme crimes. New technology and DNA
testing make it possible to use evidence many years after the crime
has been committed and state law should protect the victim's right
to justice. The amendment made on the House floor includes civil
penalties as well.
The legislation will become effective on the date it becomes law
and as long as the 10 year limitation has not expired by the time
HB 210 becomes law, the crime has no limitations for when it can be
prosecuted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR read from page 1, line 9 through page 2, line 6 and
asked whether there was already a 10 year statute of limitations in
effect.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said there was. He then added that the wording
was confusing to him but the drafter was present to answer
questions. The intent of the bill centers on page 1, line 13, which
states that prosecution of class A, or class B felony sexual
assault or violation of AS 11.41.425(a)(2) or (3) may commence at
any time. Although there are other felony sexual assaults, they
deal with contact while this deals with penetration.
He announced he would have no objection if the committee wanted to
drop the amendment that was added on the House floor which drops
the statute of limitations for civil penalties. Because his focus
was on criminal penalties, he wasn't committed one way or the other
to the statute of limitations being extended to include civil
penalties as well.
He thought the drafter might better explain the bill arrangement if
there were questions.
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether Representative Meyer had an amendment
ready.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded that section 1 could be deleted and
the sections renumbered.
The reasoning behind the amendment was that if it was possible to
prove that a suspect was criminally liable for a 20 year old crime
then why shouldn't the victim be able to bring civil charges as
well.
Number 2100
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked the drafter to explain the confusion over 10
years.
MR. GERALD LUCKHAUPT, an attorney with Legislative Legal &
Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency explained that
Section 2(a) says there is no criminal statute of limitations for
the listed offences. Subsection (b) maintains the current 10 year
statute of limitations for class C felony sexual assault that
involves contact and sexual abuse of a minor.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked why page 2, line 3 was included.
MR LUCKHAUPT replied that unless there is another applicable
statute that specifies a different statute of limitations or if
it is a crime listed in (a) then these are the statutes of
limitations that generally apply in Alaska.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said, then "it's part of the exception. Except as
otherwise provided by law or except as in section (a)."
MR LUCKHAUPT agreed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how this affects outstanding cases. For
instance, if a case was 12 to 15 years old before the police got
proof, current state law would not allow prosecution. Would
passage of HB 210 allow prosecution of that case?
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that if the statute of limitations on an
outstanding offense has not yet run, the statute of limitations
could be extended.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked about a situation in which no indictment or
complaint was brought. Wouldn't it be a waste of time to go
forward if there is a statute of limitations that would prevent
this? "Does the look back caused by this legislation go beyond
the previous 10 years?" For instance, consider that a crime was
committed 15 to 20 years ago and the investigation occurred 10 or
more years after the crime was committed and there was a 10 year
statute of limitations in effect. Would the passage of this
legislation allow the prosecutor to prosecute the perpetrator?
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied that once the statute of limitations on an
offense has run, that offense may not be resurrected for criminal
prosecution.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he understood that this legislation would
only affect offenses that have occurred ten years prior to the
effective date of the act.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said that is basically correct but there is a
provision that deals with an offense committed against a minor or
an individual who was not aware that the offense had occurred so
there could be instances in which the look back would extend
farther that ten years.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Mr. Luckhaupt for the explanation and asked
whether there were additional witnesses who wanted to testify.
MR. BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Alaska Public Defender Agency,
testified that the primary concern addressed by the bill is the
physical evidence left from a sexual assault in which there is no
suspect that can be DNA tested. If the DNA patterns are kept in a
data bank, a suspect may be identified for a crime that was
committed more that ten years ago.
Side B
Although he can't argue against DNA patterning being used on that
category of case, he is concerned about sexual assaults in which
there is some kind of recovered memory issue and there is no DNA
evidence. A prosecution that is undertaken 10 or 15 years after the
fact would put the defense at a decided disadvantage. The reason
for statutes of limitation is to provide some protection against
older cases in which there is an alibi but it can no longer be
established.
With this in mind, he would like to explore the possibility of
restricting the extended look back to DNA cases or those involving
scientific evidence.
SENATOR THERRIAULT remarked that the occurrence of a resurrected
memory case is remote and both the defense and the prosecution
could be at a disadvantage in terms of corroborating witnesses or
alibis.
MR. McCUNE agreed that the occurrence of such cases is remote but,
in such instances, he felt the defense would be at a greater
disadvantage than the prosecution by the passage of time.
Number 2281
MS TRISHA GENTLE, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence
& Sexual Assault, testified in support of the bill. It's important
to recognize that this allows victims the time to heal emotionally
and physically before coming forward to prosecute.
She also spoke in favor of the amendment to include civil
penalties. Although she thought there would be few instances in
which a victim chose that avenue but it would provide a victim
another opportunity to feel whole once again.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called for questions and there were none. He asked
for the pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR COWDERY moved CSHB 210(JUD) forward with individual
recommendations.
There being no objection, CSHB (210) and attached fiscal note moved
from committee with individual recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|