Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
02/06/2013 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB24 | |
| HJR4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 24 - SELF DEFENSE
1:06:06 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 24, "An Act relating to self-defense in any place
where a person has a right to be."
CHAIR KELLER noted that the committee had addressed a previous
iteration of HB 24 during the last legislature.
1:07:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 24 and mentioning the
castle doctrine, explained that the bill was introduced because
he'd felt it necessary to address the concerns of his
constituents and other Alaskans regarding their ability to
defend themselves. House Bill 24 would clarify that [the
affirmative defense of self-defense could be available to anyone
who uses] deadly force in any place he/she has a right to be.
The bill would add a new paragraph (5) to AS 11.81.335(b),
thereby stipulating that [there is no duty to leave the area if
the person is] in any place where the person has a right to be.
1:09:40 PM
REX SHATTUCK, Staff, Representative Mark Neuman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Neuman, one of the
joint prime sponsors of HB 24, noted that current statutes
[addressing the affirmative defense of self-defense] outline the
circumstances under which the use of nondeadly force is
justified, and the circumstances under which the use of deadly
force is justified. Under the bill's proposed new
AS 11.81.335(b)(5), he elaborated, a person may not use deadly
force under [AS 11.81.335] if the person knows that with
complete personal safety and with complete safety 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 in any place where
the person has a right to be.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether existing
AS 11.81.335(b)(1) and (3) should be deleted as superfluous
given that proposed new paragraph (5)'s language, "in any place
where the person has a right to be", would include the locations
currently outlined in those paragraphs (1) and (3): premises
that the person owns or leases, premises where the person
resides at, premises where the person is the guest or agent of
the owner, lessor, or resident, and a building where the person
works in the ordinary course of his/her employment.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN concurred with regard to the locations
outlined in existing paragraphs (1) and (2), and remarked that
the bill would allow any person who isn't trespassing to use
deadly force "before it happens."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, concurring with Representative LeDoux,
expressed interest in deleting existing paragraphs (1) and (3)
from AS 11.81.335(b).
MR. SHATTUCK relayed that the bill is intended to clarify that
if one isn't trespassing, there is no duty to retreat.
1:17:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how the terms, "area of the
encounter" as used in existing AS 11.81.335(b), and, "the
person's household" as used in existing AS 11.81.335(b)(4), were
defined; existing paragraph (4) says in part, "protecting a
child or a member of the person's household". He also raised
the issue of using deadly force to defend a third person who is
not a member of the household.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN relayed that the term, "the person's
household" is defined in statute, and surmised that the courts
would address a particular person's actions on a case-by-case
basis at trial.
MR. SHATTUCK added that existing AS 11.81.340 addresses the use
of force in defense of a third person who is not a member of the
household.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, raising the issue of surplusage, again
expressed interest in deleting existing paragraphs (1) and (3)
from AS 11.81.335(b).
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, in response to comments and questions,
relayed that HB 24 wouldn't be making any other changes to
existing law, and explained that the bill was drafted as it was
at the drafter's recommendation.
MR. SHATTUCK added that the bill is intended to clarify that a
person has the ability to defend himself/herself, and reiterated
that under the bill's proposed change, there would be no duty to
retreat if the person is any place he/she has a right to be.
CHAIR KELLER pointed out that under both existing law and the
bill, the standard is one of "knowing"; under subsection (b) of
AS 11.81.335, if one "knows" that one can avoid using deadly
force while remaining completely safe simply by leaving the
area, then one may not use deadly force [under AS 11.81.335].
MR. SHATTUCK - after paraphrasing a quote by U.S. Supreme Court
justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., from Brown v. United States,
256 U.S. 335 (1921), "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in
the presence of an uplifted knife." - characterized the duty to
retreat as an awful burden.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his understanding that the fiscal
notes submitted for HB 24 indicate that the bill won't impact
the departments' ability to do their jobs.
1:33:22 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), said simply that the DPS is neutral on HB 24. In
response to a question, he explained that passage of the bill
would not impact how the DPS investigates deaths, and that it
would be up to the Department of Law (DOL) to determine how to
charge a person in any given case.
1:35:34 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), in response to
a question, clarified that the statute being changed by HB 24
doesn't mandate that an attacked person retreat, but instead
simply stipulates that if the person can retreat in complete
safety, he/she doesn't then have the statutory authority to go
so far as to use deadly force in response to the attack. This
has been borne out in case law. In response to further
questions, he relayed that the terms, "deadly force" and
"household member" are defined in statute; offered his belief
that the statutory definition of the term, "household member"
found in AS 18.66.990(5) would be used in cases involving
Title 11, since there is already a reference in Title 11 to that
Title 18 definition; surmised that passage of the bill wouldn't
change the arguments raised in court, or their outcomes, in
cases involving [the affirmative defense of self-defense]; and
paraphrased from AS 18.66.990(5), which read:
(5) "household member" includes
(A) adults or minors who are current or former
spouses;
(B) adults or minors who live together or who
have lived together;
(C) adults or minors who are dating or who have
dated;
(D) adults or minors who are engaged in or who
have engaged in a sexual relationship;
(E) adults or minors who are related to each
other up to the fourth degree of consanguinity,
whether of the whole or half blood or by adoption,
computed under the rules of civil law;
(F) adults or minors who are related or formerly
related by marriage;
(G) persons who have a child of the relationship;
and
(H) minor children of a person in a relationship
that is described in (A) - (G) of this paragraph;
1:46:43 PM
BRIAN JUDY, Senior State Liaison, National Rifle Association -
Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), said the NRA
strongly supports HB 24, which he characterized as important
self-defense legislation. Under the bill, he surmised, only a
person who is justified in using deadly force won't have to
retreat from any place he/she has a legal right to be, and thus
the question to be addressed [in any case wherein the
affirmative defense of self-defense is pursued] will be whether
the person really was justified, and existing law already
outlines what constitutes justification, with AS 11.81.330 first
addressing both justification for the use of nondeadly force and
the circumstances under which nondeadly force wouldn't be
justified, and with AS 11.81.335(a) then addressing
justification for the use of deadly force. Specifically, AS
11.81.335(a) stipulates that a person who is justified in using
nondeadly force may [instead] use deadly force in defense of
himself/herself when [and to the extent] he/she reasonably
believes that deadly force is necessary to defend against death,
serious physical injury, kidnapping [that is not custodial
interference in the first degree,] sexual assault [in the first
or second degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree,]
or robbery. Under the bill, [in pursuing the affirmative
defense of self-defense,] as long as [the person could prove
both that] he/she was justified in using the deadly force and
that the encounter took place somewhere where he/she had a right
to be, the person would no longer have to also prove that he/she
first ascertained that he/she couldn't leave the area in
complete safety.
MR. JUDY, in conclusion, opined that victims should have the
protection of law when they stand their ground and defend
themselves while they are someplace they have a right to be, and
urged the committee to support HB 24. In response to questions,
he surmised that deleting existing AS 11.81.335(b)(1) and (3)
would remove language made redundant by the bill's proposed new
AS 11.81.335(b)(5); and characterized Alaska's statutes
[addressing the affirmative defense of self-defense] as fairly
logical and typical.
2:03:15 PM
MIKE COONS - after referring to his work-related "use of force
continuum" training and his training for carrying a concealed
weapon - opined that HB 24 would protect those who have to use
deadly force to defend themselves from an attack, from then
being further victimized during the resulting court proceeding.
2:06:37 PM
SCOTT HAMANN relayed that he is pleased to see HB 24's proposed
change [to the statutes addressing the affirmative defense of
self-defense] regarding places where a person has a right to be,
characterized the bill as important, concurred that perhaps any
resulting redundant language could be deleted, expressed support
for HB 24, and urged its passage.
CHAIR KELLER, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 24.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, in conclusion, observed that deleting
existing AS 11.81.335(b)(1) and (3) could have an effect, and
surmised that they were included in existing law for a reason.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT expressed a concern that deleting those
provisions could result in more questions being raised at trial.
CHAIR KELLER, in response to a question, noted that the
Department of Law (DOL) had provided testimony on the
aforementioned previous iteration of HB 24 during the last
legislature. Chair Keller then relayed that HB 24 would be held
over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| White House Now is the Time.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR004A.PDF |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR 4 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR 4 Reason-Rupe Survey.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR 4 Presidential Memos.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR 4 NCSL List No Gun Control legislation.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR 4 Michigan Resolution HR 18 .pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| HB 24.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| FN-DOA-OPA.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| FN-DOA-PDA.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| FN-DPS.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| FN-LAW-CRIM 2.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| CSHJR 4 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| CSHJR 4.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |