Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
03/19/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB89 | |
| HB359 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 359 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 359 - SEX CRIMES; TESTIMONY BY VIDEO CONFERENCE
3:17:47 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 359, "An Act relating to conspiracy to
commit human trafficking in the first degree or sex trafficking
in the first degree; relating to the crime of furnishing
indecent material to minors, the crime of online enticement of a
minor, the crime of prostitution, and the crime of sex
trafficking; relating to forfeiture of property used in
prostitution offenses; relating to sex offender registration;
relating to testimony by video conference; adding Rule 38.3,
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date." [Included in members' packets was a proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 359, Version 27-GH2627\M,
Gardner, 3/17/12, that incorporated amendments adopted during
previous hearings on the bill.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that in drafting a committee
substitute (CS), a change was made by the drafter to address a
problem with hand-altered Amendment 3, as amended, that being
that in amending Section 6's proposed new AS 11.66.100(c)(1) -
pertaining to the crime of prostitution - the word, "patronizes"
should not have replaced the phrase, "is a patron of". He
referred to a memorandum from Legislative Legal and Research
Services dated March 18, 2012, in members' packets that
explained the rationale for not using the word, "patronizes".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed CS for
HB 359, Version 27-GH2627\M, Gardner, 3/17/12, as the working
document.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected and questioned whether Version M
contained all the other amendments adopted previously.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG confirmed that it did.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that Version M was before the
committee.
3:21:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 13,
labeled 27-GH2627\M.2, Gardner, 3/19/12, which read:
Page 4, lines 9 - 10:
Delete "material is [TO ANOTHER PERSON ANY]
material that the person knows"
Insert "person knows that the material [TO
ANOTHER PERSON ANY MATERIAL THAT]"
[Note to the reader: Amendment 13 was the first amendment to
Version M of HB 359.]
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES and VICE CHAIR THOMPSON objected for the
purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 13 simply
provides alternative phrasing for the stipulation outlined in
paragraph (2) of Section 4's proposed AS 11.61.128(a), which
addresses the crime of distribution of indecent material to
minors.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON removed his objection, ascertained that no
other objection was maintained, and announced that Amendment 13
was adopted.
3:23:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 14,
labeled 27-GH2627\M.3, Gardner, 3/19/12, which read:
Page 7, line 5:
Delete "AS 11.66.100 - 11.66.135"
Insert "AS 11.66.100(c) and 11.66.110 -
11.66.135"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 14 would
change the statutory references in Section 13's proposed
AS 11.66.145 - which mandates that property used to institute,
aid, or facilitate, or property received or derived from, a
violation of certain laws shall be forfeited - such that that
forfeiture provision would then only apply to Section 6's
proposed class C felony crime of being the "patron" of a
prostitute who is under 18 years of age while being at least
three years older than his/her victim, and to the first, second,
third, and fourth degree crimes of promoting prostitution, which
HB 359 is proposing to change to the first, second, third, and
fourth degree crimes of sex trafficking. It is not the
committee's intention for that forfeiture provision to apply to
the class B misdemeanor crimes of prostitution, and Amendment 14
would ensure that it doesn't.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON ascertained that there were no further
objections, and announced that Amendment 14 was adopted.
3:25:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 15, to add to Section 16's proposed new
AS 12.47.100(h) - addressing testimony from a witness by
contemporaneous two-way video conference in a pretrial hearing
to determine a defendant's competency to stand trial - a comma
on page 8, line 27, after the word "court" and before the
phrase, "and the procedure allows"; Conceptual Amendment 15
would address a grammatical issue in the first sentence of
proposed subsection (h).
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected, sought and received information
regarding the location of Conceptual Amendment 15's proposed
change, and then removed his objection.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON ascertained that there were no further
objections, and announced that Conceptual Amendment 15 was
adopted.
3:27:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 16,
labeled 27-GH2627\M.1, Gardner, 3/19/12, which read:
Page 12, line 14, following "minor":
Insert "under AS 11.41.452(e)"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that the aforementioned
Legislative Legal and Research Services' memorandum addresses
the need for Amendment 16's proposed change to Section 19's
proposed AS 12.55.185(10) - which defines the term "most serious
felony" for purposes of sentencing and probation under AS 12.55
- and indicated that under Amendment 16, only the class A felony
crime of online enticement of a minor would be added to
paragraph (10)'s definition.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, after ascertaining that there were no
further objections, announced that Amendment 16 was adopted.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON then noted that public testimony on HB 359
had previously been closed.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to Section 16, and offered her
understanding that its proposed new AS 12.47.100(h) - addressing
testimony from a witness by contemporaneous two-way video
conference in a hearing to determine a defendant's competency to
stand trial - might raise constitutional issues depending upon
whether a competency hearing would be considered enough like a
criminal trial to warrant providing for the person's
constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against him/her.
3:33:34 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), referred to
an amendment in members' packets proposing to replace
subsection (h)'s stipulation requiring that any such witness be
in a place from which people customarily travel by air to the
court, with an alternative stipulation that the court must find
that allowing a witness's testimony by contemporaneous two-way
video conference is necessary to further an important public
policy, and indicated that the DOL's position is that such an
amendment is not necessary; that amendment read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 8, lines 26-27, following "if the":
delete "witness is in a place from which people
customarily travel by air to the court"
insert "court finds that doing so is necessary to
further an important public policy"
3:34:00 PM
RICHARD SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General, Central Office,
Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), offered his
understanding that both the Supreme Court of California and the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that under California
law, competency hearings are like civil matters; that almost all
states have said that competency hearings are different than
criminal trials in that not all constitutional rights apply; and
that no case has directly addressed the issue of whether the
constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against oneself
apply in competency hearings. Competency hearings are not like
criminal trials, he asserted, since the question being addressed
is different, the burden of going forth could be borne by a
different party, and the standard of proof is different. The
state's view, he indicated, is that contemporaneous two-way
video conference technology is sufficient to provide for the
constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against oneself,
if indeed such rights must be provided for in competency
hearings; the goal with the bill's proposed change to
AS 12.47.100 is to make the most efficient use of the state's
very limited resources during competency hearings, the number of
which has quadrupled since the late 1990s, early 2000s.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, mentioned that
members' packets contain the aforementioned 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals case, Nguyen v. Garcia, decided in 2007; and a U.S.
District Court case from Maine, United States v. Burhoe, decided
in 2008.
3:42:57 PM
DOUGLAS GARDNER, Director, Legal Services, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA) - referring
to a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska
(ACLU of Alaska) in members' packets - surmised that
Section 16's proposed AS 12.47.100(h) is likely to engender
litigation, with the issue still to be resolved being that of
whether the constitutional rights to confront the witnesses
against oneself apply in competency hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES mentioned that she wouldn't be offering
the aforementioned amendment to Section 16's proposed
AS 12.47.100(h).
3:49:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 359, Version 27-GH2627\M, Gardner, 3/17/12, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 359(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 89 HCS (STA).pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 Request for House Judiciary Hearing.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 HCS (STA) fiscal note.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| HB 50 CS (JUD) M.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB 359 (JUD) M.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 359 |
| HB 359 CS (JUD) Memo.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 359 |
| SB 89 House Judiciary Amendments.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| Sponsor Statement HCSCSSB 89(STA).pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| HB 359 Amendments.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 359 |