Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/10/1993 01:12 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 64
"An Act creating the crimes of stalking in the first
and second degrees and providing penalties for their
violation; providing a peace officer with the authority
to arrest without a warrant a person the peace officer
has reasonable cause to believe has committed stalking;
relating to the release before trial of a person
accused of stalking; and prohibiting the suspension of
imposition of sentence of a person convicted of
stalking."
Representative Brown asked what would be accomplished by
extending the parole requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY stated that the extended parole
requirement will help to keep perpetrators in line. The
original proposal was 5 to 99 years.
Representative Parnell asked if other crimes would be
impacted. Representative Toohey clarified that all crimes
with a five year probation period would be brought up to ten
years. Representative Brown noted that the legislation has
been broadened to cover all crimes. She expressed concern
that the zero fiscal note is inadequate.
MARGOT KNUTH, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW explained
9
that the legislation originally addressed the stalking
offense. The Department of Law expressed concern that
probation for a single offense was dramatically altered.
She pointed out that legislation in the prior legislative
session would have extended probation for all felony
offenses to ten years. The House Judiciary Committee
incorporated the legislation to extend the probation period
for all felony offenses into HB 64. She asserted that the
fiscal cost will be minimal due to the fact that most
probation violations are new crimes. She stressed that
offenders would be returned to jail via a probation
revocation rather than through a new prosecution. Probation
revocation proceedings are faster and less costly than
prosecution proceedings.
Representative Brown emphasized that because the potential
time that an offender could have their parole revoked is
extended there would be an impact on the department of
Corrections.
JOHN SALEMI, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDERS AGENCY (PD) stated
that the parole extension will result in an increased
caseload. He disagreed with Ms. Knuth. He stressed that
most probation revocations are due to technical violations
such as failure to appear for meetings with probation
officers, failing to comply with rehabilitation programs or
change of residence or employment without approval. He
added that probation officers feel they must report
technical violations because of civil liability concerns.
He expected a number of new cases would be filed as a result
of the parole extension. He disagreed with the Department
of Corrections's assumption that the impact would be zero.
The PD is asking for two paralegal assistants.
Representative Brown observed that the fiscal note submitted
by the Public Defenders Agency suggests that the anti-
stalking provision may be susceptible to a constitutional
challenge. Mr. Salemi stated that the sponsor has worked
with the Department of Law to address the constitutional
challenge.
Representative Brown asked if the probation extension was
limited to the anti-stalking provision if the fiscal note
would be lower. Mr. Salemi stated that if the original
probation provision was reinstated that the fiscal impact
would be minimal. He stated that there would be no need for
a fiscal impact note.
Representative Toohey offered Amendment 1 (Attachment 6).
She observed that the amendment would return the probation
period to five years.
10
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 1.
Representative Martin OBJECTED for purpose of discussion.
He asked for clarification of the amendment's effect.
Representative Toohey clarified that the deletions in
Amendment 1 would return current law.
Co-Chair Larson reiterated the motion to adopt Amendment 1.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Representative Foster asked if a person sitting in a car all
day long near to the victims place of employment would be
considered "stalking." Ms. Knuth emphasized that in order
for an offense to be committed the defendant must place the
person in fear of death or physical injury. She did not
think the example given would be an offense.
Representative Brown MOVED to report CSHB 64 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
(Tape Change, HFC 93-44, Side 1)
Representative Navarre questioned if the creation of a new
law as proposed in Amendment 1 would have fiscal impact on
the Public Defender Agency.
Mr. Salemi clarified that the impact will be minimal. He
stated that it would be difficult to quantify.
Representative Navarre WITHDREW HIS OBJECTION.
Representative Parnell referred to page 2, line 23, CSHB 64
(JUD). He asked if it is the intent that the victim be held
in reasonable fear of death.
Ms. Knuth answered that line 23 refers to the victims
subjective fear. She added that there must be a basis for
the fear in reality. She noted that since stalking often
results from a prior relationship it is possible for the
perpetuator to have an inside knowledge of what will
frighten the victim.
Representative Parnell asked Mr. Salemi to expound on the
definition of "in fear of death". Mr. Salemi replied that
the fear must be reasonable. He stated that the course of
conduct issue may be a larger issue. He did not think that
constitutional problems would arise.
In response to a question from Representative Parnell, Ms.
Knuth explained that the fear of death element is included
in existing assault statutes.
11
Co-Chair Larson reiterated the motion to MOVE CSHB 64 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
CSHB 64 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with two zero fiscal notes by the
Department of Administration and with a zero fiscal note by
the Department of Corrections and with a zero fiscal note by
the Department of Public Safety, dated 3/1/93 and with a
zero fiscal note by the Department of Law, dated 3/1/93.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|