Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/04/1997 01:35 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
1
HOUSE BILL 9
"An Act relating to the right of crime victims and
victims of juvenile offenses to be present at court
proceedings; and amending Rule 615, Alaska Rules of
Evidence."
Co-Chair Therriault explained that Representative Porter,
the sponsor of HB 9, had been requested by the
Administration to use the legislation as a vehicle for
additional language. He clarified that the Committee would
take testimony on the bill and then it would be held in
Committee for rescheduling.
REPRESENTATIVE BRAIN PORTER noted that the Alaskan
Constitution had been amended in 1994 adding Article #1, a
new Section #24, which specifically extended to crime
victims, "The right to obtain information about and be
allowed to be present at all criminal or juvenile
proceedings where the accused has the right to be
present...".
He added, at least two Superior Court judges are
interpreting the Alaska Statutes and Rule #615, Alaska Rules
of Evidence, to exclude victims of crimes and juvenile
offenses from being present in the courtroom during a trial
of the accused until after the victim has testified.
HB 9 was created to implement the mandate of the 1994
Amendment to the Constitution and to make clear to
judiciary, a crime victim's right to be present at the trial
and other proceedings of the accused, including juvenile
proceedings, whenever the accused has the right to be
present.
Representative J. Davies asked if a balance would occur
incorporating the two constitutional provisions.
Representative Porter responded that the right of the victim
to be present in court anytime the defendant is present, is
already included in the Constitution. Previously, whereas,
the victims rights were in statute and the defendants rights
were in the Constitution, the defendants rights being
constitutional had preference over statutory rights of
victims. The court should create the balance and thus
determine whose rights should prevail.
JAYNE ANDREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE & SEXUAL ASSAULT, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the
legislation. She stated that equal rights would send a
clear message that victims have the right to be present and
heard.
2
Co-Chair Therriault spoke regarding a spousal abuse
situation, asking if that situation would be a concern for
the Council. Ms. Andreen stressed that there are a number
of domestic violence victims who are willing and want to
participate in the prosecution of their abuser. Cases do
exist in which the victims do not want to be present
throughout the trial. In those situations, the alleged
offender could make eye contact, thus manipulating and
controlling the victim further. She stated that it was
important to clearly stipulate that victims would have
either option. With the support and advocacy, the victims
will be assisted in making a determination as to whether it
would be in their best interest to be present during court
proceedings.
PAUL SWEET, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MAT-SU, spoke in
support of the legislation, although, questioned how the
bill would affect appeals on mandatory parole.
Representative Porter explained that the victims right to be
present at any court proceeding in which the defendant was
present, would continue throughout the legislation. He
added, other provisions exist in statute and in the
Constitution that allow the victim to be notified and
present their point of view. The victim would be well
covered throughout the process.
Mr. Sweet echoed his concern regarding the victims rights
during the appeal process. Representative Porter agreed
that the victim should be notified when the defendant was
scheduled for an appeal. Mr. Sweet stressed that the court
must be constitutionally required to notify the victims of
the scheduled appeal process. Representative Porter
acknowledged that the revised version of the legislation
will incorporate language addressing that concern.
Representative Porter added, an abundance of statutes
currently exist, which address the notification process of
the victims. The committee substitute will attempt to
consolidate information so that the victim can look at the
Victim's Right Statute and have information clearly defined
in one place.
Representative J. Davies advised that there is other
legislation which addresses victim notification.
JANICE LIENHART, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
voiced support of the proposed legislation. She noted that
the Department of Corrections (DOC) is supposed to notify
all victims, although, some "fall through the cracks" as a
result of the case volume. For a victim of crime to heal,
they need to have all the information regarding the crime,
and then to be a part of the trial process if they so
3
desire. This will empower the victim to have a sense of
closure around the situation.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, testified in support of the HB
9. She added that the legislation is similar to Governor
Knowles Omnibus Bill. That legislation intends to remedy
occasions when judges have excluded victims from court
proceedings, even after the constitutional amendment was
ratified. The ability to cross-examine, answers any
possible problems of due process that arise on behalf of the
defendant. She commented that it is important that victims
see the justice system prosecute the defendants on their
behalf.
Representative J. Davies asked if a more fair trial could
exist, if there was no cross-examination, suggesting that it
could taint the trial. Ms. Carpeneti disagreed, noting that
cross-examination was the best way to get at the truth.
Whether or not a victim or a witness has heard testimony in
a trial, they are subject to cross-examination. There is no
good reason why the victim should not be present and watch
the justice system proceed against the defendant.
Representative J. Davies noted that his amendments would
encourage testimony early on in the trial. Ms. Carpeneti
did not agree with that positioning, stating that the order
of witnesses is a tactile position and neither the
prosecution or the defense would want to schedule their
witnesses in any particular order. An additional problem to
that approach would be when a witness was recalled.
Co-Chair Therriault referenced a sheet in the handout,
received from the Court System from the Criminal Rules
Committee minutes regarding: Evidence Rule 615: Exclusion
of Victims from Courtroom. That handout states:
"The committee reviewed the Department of Law's
request (dated July 10, 1996) that Evidence Rule
615 be amended to prevent victims from being
excluded from proceedings at which the defendant
is present. Chuck Pengilly expressed the view
that Rule 615 should be eliminated entirely. He
would like to do further research on this
possibility. The committee agreed, however, in
the meantime, to ask the supreme court to include
the following note at the end of the rule:
This rule does not authorize the
exclusion of a crime victim, as defined
by law, from any hearing at which the
defendant has a right to be present.
4
See Alaska Const. art. I, & 24."
HB 9 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|