Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/08/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 181 - APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that HB 181 was the next item of business before the committee. Number 020 MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, stated that HB 181 would allow the state the same right to appeal from adverse decisions in criminal cases that the federal government had. She said that this right would stop at the point of double jeopardy. She noted that if a criminal defendant was acquitted, that was the end of the case. Number 030 MS. KNUTH said, currently, the state was allowed to obtain review from the Court of Appeals on adverse evidentiary rulings by filing a "petition for review." She noted that 80 to 90 percent of those petitions were granted. She said the current procedure was two-fold and inefficient. She commented that HB 181 would allow the state to "appeal" those evidentiary rulings. She noted that only about twelve petitions for review were filed statewide per year. MS. KNUTH said the state wanted to be able to use the same procedure that defendants used when they were on the losing end of similar rulings. She noted that HB 181 was more of a cost-saving measure than a substantial change in policy for the state. Number 107 REP. PHILLIPS asked if other states had laws similar to HB 181. Number 111 MS. KNUTH replied that she had not researched the laws of other states, but some states probably have laws which restricted the state's right to appeal beyond the requirements of the federal constitution. Number 121 REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth if she had said that HB 181 would only impact about twelve cases per year. Number 125 MS. KNUTH indicated that Rep. Davidson was correct. She said the workload of those twelve cases constituted half of one appellate attorney's workload in a year. Number 145 REP. DAVIDSON commented that it seemed as if HB 181 was allowing the state the same opportunities that an individual defendant had. He said he liked the idea of giving an individual some advantage over the resources of the state. Number 161 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that HB 181 did not change the burden of proof, nor any of the other "heavy-duty" requirements that the state had in a criminal case. He commented that HB 181 would give the state the same privilege that defendants have. He stated that defendants have 30 days from the date of a decision in which to file an appeal. However, under existing law, the state only has ten days. Additionally, he said, the state has several other hoops to jump through. Number 161 REP. DAVIDSON asked if it was possible for the state to receive an extension of the ten-day limit. Number 195 MS. KNUTH responded that a defendant's appeal could be accomplished with one sheet of paper which stated an individual's intention to broach certain issues. However, she said, the state's petition for review required an entire analysis of the issues. MS. KNUTH noted that either side could file a petition for review in the middle of a criminal trial. But, she said, HB 181 would not affect those mid-trial petitions. She noted that the bill would affect evidentiary rulings which resulted in the dismissal of a case. MS. KNUTH said HB 181 would change the amount of energy required to get certain issues addressed by the appellate courts. Number 255 REP. DAVIDSON said he was not convinced that hurried justice was fair justice. He said he was not certain that HB 181 was necessary. Number 266 REP. NORDLUND asked Ms. Knuth to comment on the twelve rulings regarding which petitions for review were filed in 1992. MS. KNUTH replied that ten petitions for review were filed, eight of which were granted, and two of which were denied. Two of the rulings were not petitioned. Number 286 REP. NORDLUND asked why HB 181 did not result in a fiscal impact to the state. MS. KNUTH explained that the person who prepared the fiscal note probably addressed the issue of whether or not the bill would result in more appeals. Because it would not result in more appeals, the preparer of the fiscal note probably assumed that it would not have a fiscal impact, she said. She stated that the fiscal note did not take into consideration the increased efficiency HB 181 would provide. Number 324 CHAIRMAN PORTER called the members' attention to a memorandum in their packets from CYNTHIA HORA of the DEPARTMENT OF LAW. He said the memorandum indicated that HB 181 would result in a smoother, more timely process for petitioning. He said he was under the impression that the Department of Law sometimes did not file petitions, simply due to a lack of time. However, with HB 181, time would be saved, and therefore more cases could be appealed. That circumstance would probably result in a change in the type of work to be performed, but with a zero fiscal impact to the state. Number 345 MS. HORETSKI commented that HB 181 was identical to the previous year's HB 303, which unanimously passed the House before dying in the Senate Rules Committee. She noted that up until a 1983 Alaska Supreme Court decision, the language of Alaska's law was interpreted to be the same as federal law on that issue. Now, Alaska's law was interpreted to be more narrow. Number 373 REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth how a decision was made regarding whether or not an appeal violated double jeopardy principles. Number 379 MS. KNUTH responded that judges made that decision through the adversarial process. Number 404 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that varying states said that double jeopardy attached at varying points. He noted that HB 181 would only apply to those motions that occurred prior to a trial or dismissal. Number 418 MS. KNUTH gave an example of a man who had been stopped for a traffic violation and threw bags of cocaine out the window of his car. In that case, she said, the judge suppressed the evidence because he ruled that the traffic stop was illegal. The state wanted to appeal that ruling, she noted, because without that evidence the state had no case against the man. She said that a petition for review was now the state's way of asking the court to review its ruling. If HB 181 were to be enacted, she said, the state could file an appeal on the dismissal of the case that followed that ruling. Number 448 REP. DAVIDSON commented that Ms. Knuth's example showed a clear need for HB 181. He asked her to provide an example in which the need was less clear, in which an individual lost a certain advantage over the state. Number 455 MS. KNUTH cited an example of a presumptive sentencing situation in which it was questioned whether a defendant's prior convictions should be taken into account. If the court ruled that the prior convictions should not be considered, the defendant would not receive a presumptive sentence. A petition for review by the state might or might not be granted, she said. If, however, the state had the right to appeal a ruling, the state would definitely be able to address that issue with the Court of Appeals. Number 482 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that HB 181 did not tamper with the state's requirement to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. He said he saw the bill as a means to save the state time. Number 495 REP. DAVIDSON commented that the committee had only heard one side of the issue. He said he would like to hear from the Public Defender Agency and criminal attorneys. Number 504 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the Public Defender Agency and the Office of Public Advocacy had been notified that HB 181 was before the committee and had elected not to testify. Number 511 REP. PHILLIPS made a motion to pass HB 181 out of committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. REP. DAVIDSON objected. CHAIRMAN PORTER called for a roll call vote. Representatives Phillips, Green, Kott, Nordlund, James, and Porter voted "yea." Representative Davidson voted "nay." And so, the motion carried. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the committee would reschedule HB 62 and HB 147 as soon as possible. Number 532 REP. JAMES asked if the Legislative Affairs Legal Services Division had reviewed HB 147 for compliance with federal civil rights laws. Number 537 MS. HORETSKI responded that she was unaware of any legal analysis of HB 147. Number 540 REP. JAMES requested that a legal analysis be performed. CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|