Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/28/2013 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB24 | |
| HB19 | |
| HB56 | |
| HB21 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 24
"An Act relating to self-defense in any place where a
person has a right to be."
1:37:27 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman stated that the change to the bill was
the addition of the language, "or in any other place where
the person has a right to be." He said that the language
would allow a person the rights granted by the Castle
Doctrine anywhere the person happened to be.
1:38:36 PM
Representative Gara had questions for the Department of
Law.
1:38:52 PM
RICHARD SVOBODNY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW expressed that he was available
to answer questions.
1:39:10 PM
Representative Gara noted that existing statute already
extended the right to self-defense anywhere a person felt
threatened, and was not limited to home protection.
Mr. Svobodny responded in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asserted that people who believed that
there was not an existing right to self-defense were
misinformed.
1:40:12 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze requested that Representative Gara ask his
questions in a less leading manner.
1:40:17 PM
Representative Gara inquired if an individual had the right
to self-defense in public.
Mr. Svobodny replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara believed that under current law a
person could not chase someone down, kill them, and argue
self-defense.
1:41:45 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that Mr. Svobodny should not
answer moral certitudes. He thought that Representative
Gara's questioning was an unfair attempt to affirm his
level of certitude. He instructed Mr. Svobodny to reply to
"yes" or "no" questions.
Representative Gara argued that he was simply asking
questions of the department.
Co-Chair Stoltze reminded Representative Gara that he was
asking questions "through the Chair."
1:42:15 PM
Mr. Svobodny believed that under current law, one had the
right to chase a person one felt threatened by.
Representative Gara asked if the right to self-defense
could be lost if a person had the ability to not shoot with
clear safety to themselves or others.
Mr. Svobodny replied that a jury would decide that question
after the fact. He did not believe that the person would be
charged in a self-defense situation, provided the person
doing the chasing believed that they were in danger of
death or serious physical injury.
1:43:51 PM
Representative Gara understood that under current law a
person would lose the right to claim self-defense if the
use of deadly force could have been avoided while safety
was maintained.
Mr. Svobodny discussed a similar Alaskan case where a
person who was fleeing turned towards a homeowner and
attempted to fire but the gun jammed. He furthered that as
the person was running away with the jammed gun, the
homeowner chased them a block and shot them; the homeowner
had the duty to retreat as the person was running away,
because he could have retreated safely.
1:45:36 PM
Representative Gara gathered that in that scenario the
homeowner did not have to chase the person and therefore
lost the right to claim self-defense.
Mr. Svobodny replied that you could not use deadly force
against a person when there was no imminent threat to you
or those around you; the amount of force must be reasonable
to the circumstances.
1:47:06 PM
Representative Gara queried how passage of the bill would
change current law.
Mr. Svobodny thought that there would be circumstances
where the district attorney's job would be made more
difficult by the question of whether deadly force should
have allowed been used. He said that attorneys made that
decision all of the time, but it became very clear if a
person had the ability to retreat in absolute safety but
chose not to.
1:48:00 PM
Representative Gara stated that if there was no difference
between the bill and current law then time was being
wasted. He referred to AS 11.81.335(b):
Sec. 11.81.335. Justification: Use of deadly force in
defense of self.
(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a
person who is justified in using non-deadly force in
self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force
in self-defense upon another person when and to the
extent the person reasonably believes the use of
deadly force is necessary for self-defense against
(1) death;
(2) serious physical injury;
(3) kidnapping, except for what is described as
custodial interference in the first degree in
AS 11.41.320 ;
(4) sexual assault in the first degree;
(5) sexual assault in the second degree;
(6) sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree; or
(7) robbery in any degree.
(b) A person may not use deadly force under this
section if the person knows that, with complete
personal safety and with complete safety as to others
being defended, the person can avoid the necessity of
using deadly force by leaving the area of the
encounter, except there is no duty to leave the area
if the person is
(1) on premises
(A) that the person owns or leases;
(B) where the person resides, temporarily or
permanently; or
(C) as a guest or express or implied agent of the
owner, lessor, or resident;
(2) a peace officer acting within the scope and
authority of the officer's employment or a person
assisting a peace officer under AS 11.81.380;
(3) in a building where the person works in the
ordinary course of the person's employment; or
(4) protecting a child or a member of the person's
household.
Representative Gara reiterated his understanding that under
current law:
"……if a person was in a shopping mall, or someplace
they were legally allowed to be, if with complete
safety to yourself and others, you can go call the
cops, you have to go call the cops. It seems to me the
new bill says that exception "with complete safety to
yourself and others" does not apply if you are in this
new place. Are there circumstances where, if we pass
this bill, where with complete personal safety to
yourself and others you could have avoided conflict
and could have avoided a shooting, are there
circumstances under this bill where you will be
allowed to shoot somebody even though you could have
not done so with complete personal safety to yourself
and others."
Mr. Svobodny responded that the first thing that a
prosecutor would consider would not be whether a person
retreated, but whether the amount of force was appropriate
for the circumstance. He explained that the bill
represented a question of how one balanced the death of the
person versus one's ability to not run away. He reiterated
the real question came down to whether a person used
reasonable or excessive force to defend themselves.
1:51:16 PM
Representative Gara opined that the bill removed the burden
of proof that as person acted in self-defense. He
understood that currently if a person could avoid the
situation with complete safety then the person had to
retreat, HB 24 would give the person the right to confront
the other person without first calling the police.
Mr. Svobodny replied that under HB 24 there could be
instances where reasonable people would walk away, while
others would not and the situation could escalate to the
use of deadly force.
1:53:39 PM
Co-Chair Austerman asked if a person could chase someone
outside their home with a gun down and shoot them in self-
defense.
Mr. Svobodny responded that current law allowed someone to
follow an intruder out of their home and follow them down
the street, even if the police told them not to, and if the
intruder used deadly force against the person then the
person could use deadly force in self-defense.
1:55:06 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman observed that making judgment calls on
particular instances was the job of the jury in a
courtroom.
Mr. Svobodny replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Neuman noted that Alaska law currently stated
that a person had the duty to retreat. He argued that the
bill weighed the right to defend yourself over your duty to
retreat.
Mr. Svobodny agreed that that was what the bill would do.
He said that under current law the state had the obligation
to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He said
that currently, if a person did not retreat and the state
could prove that they could have retreated in absolute
safety then the court would not pass a self-defense
instruction to the jury.
1:59:33 PM
Representative Thompson asked if the mechanism used for
deadly force would be a factor in court.
Mr. Svobodny replied in the negative. He explained that the
instrumentality made no difference; it was the amount of
deadly force used that would be under consideration.
2:00:39 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze observed that there are many different
types of deadly force.
2:00:56 PM
Representative Holmes inquired about the zero fiscal note,
#3 (LAW). She wondered why it had been changed from
indeterminate note to zero.
Mr. Svobodny shared that when the note was first crafted he
had approved it under the assumption that the law of the
state was the majority rule in the country. He stated that
he had recently discovered that in most of the states in
the U.S., the majority rule was that there was no duty to
retreat. He relayed that the other reason the fiscal note
was changed from indeterminate to zero was because
prosecutors would still need to work the cases just as they
do now, and the responsibility would fall to the jury to
determine the outcome.
2:05:19 PM
Representative Holmes asked if the case was the same for
other states that did not have duty to retreat laws.
Mr. Svobodny said yes.
2:06:23 PM
Representative Munoz probed the reasoning behind the
changed fiscal note #3.
Mr. Svobodny responded that he did not believe that that
addition of the language, "or in any other place where the
person has a right to be", would add to the trial process
for self-defense cases. He did believe that the language
could be litigated, but that did not change his view of the
note. He said that self-defense cases were small in number
for the department and would have to be litigated
regardless.
2:08:52 PM
Representative Gara recalled that the stance of the
department in the past had been that Stand Your Ground
legislation could unwittingly legalize gang violence. He
asserted that this type of legislation could make it more
difficult to prosecute gang violence cases because both
gangs would claim self-defense.
2:10:46 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the current Stand Your Ground
legislation was HB 24.
2:12:05 PM
Representative Gara asked if the department maintained its
opinion on Stand Your Ground and gang violence.
Mr. Svobodny replied that removing the duty to retreat
could exasperate a gang violence situation. He believed
that determining the aggressor would be difficult and that
mutual aggressors would be unable to use self-defense as an
excuse. He thought that the legislation could complicate
prosecuting gang related situations because of the burden
of proof for the state to prove the negative beyond a
reasonable doubt.
2:14:36 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman stated that significant language changes
had been made while crafting the legislation due to
previous testimony from the department. He felt that the
department's concerns had been addressed. He said that the
department had given contradictory testimony concerning
arrest procedures self-defense cases.
Mr. Svobodny replied that arrest procedures were
subjective. He said that if the officer on the scene could
figure out what was going on, not everyone would be
arrested; however, if there were several people involved
and all with weapons, those who were armed would be
arrested. He opined that the hypotheticals were unlimited.
2:17:05 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman offered another hypothetical.
Mr. Svobodny reiterated that it was the responsibility of
the department to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
person did not act in self-defense. He said it would be
more difficult to convict someone who legitimately acted in
self-defense.
2:18:39 PM
Representative Costello discussed the four fiscal notes
attached to the bill.
2:20:56 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 24(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
2:21:16 PM
CSHB 24(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with four previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN1(ADM), FN2(ADM), FN3 (LAW), and FN4(DPS).
AT EASE
2:27:09 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 19 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Supporting DMV Registration Classes.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB19 AML Document.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB19 Support Motor Vehicle Registration Taxes Rates.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB21 Idaho Research.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 Montana 2011.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 SREB 4 Day.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 Univ Maine Research.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 UnivGA & Maine.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB 56 Backup - Statute AS 43.52.010 Vehicle Rental Taxes.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 56 |
| HB 56 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 56 |
| HB019NEWFNCS(TRA)-DOA-DMV-2-23-13.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Mat-Su Borough Resolution.pdf |
HFIN 2/28/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |