Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/19/1994 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 389 - INCREASED PENALTIES FOR JOY RIDING CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 389, Sponsored by REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND and Co-Sponsored by REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN, for discussion. Number 489 DENNIS POSHARD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND, gave the sponsor statement for HB 389. He apologized for REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND not being in attendance due to a prior personal commitment. He stated HB 389 amends the criminal statutes to increase the penalties for joy riding. The current penalty for the first offense, Criminal Mischief III (a class A misdemeanor), would be changed to Criminal Mischief II (a class C felony). He stated the penalty for a second offense, Criminal Mischief II, would be changed to Criminal Mischief I (a class B felony). MR. POSHARD stated HB 389 was introduced because of the increase in auto theft and the lack of convictions. Current laws allow many offenders to plea down to the lesser offense of joy riding. MR. POSHARD noted about 500 incidents per year of joy riding. In 1993, only 99 cases were prosecuted, of which the vast majority were misdemeanors. Only two cases went to trial on a contested basis. In most cases the defendants plead guilty, or the charges were dropped in exchange for a plea of guilty to a lesser charge of driving while intoxicated or of theft. (REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS and ULMER rejoined the meeting at 9:27 a.m.) MR. POSHARD stated Anchorage Assembly members brought this problem to their attention. A theft charge requires someone to have the intent to deprive someone of their property. He stated the intent is what is difficult to proved, therefore it is easier to allow the defendant to plea down to the charge of joy riding. Increasing the penalty for joy riding will help decrease the rising number of vehicles stolen and the tremendous dollar loss suffered by insurance companies and the victims of auto theft. He stated HB 389 is heavily supported by the Anchorage Police Department. Number 541 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated HB 389 was deleting some wording and replacing it with very similar wording. MR. POSHARD clarified HB 389 would change the penalty for joy riding from Criminal Mischief III to Criminal Mischief II. Number 550 CHAIRMAN VEZEY turned to Section 1 and stated currently, to be under Criminal Mischief II there has to be damage to the vehicle or expenses incurred by the owner. HB 389 would make the penalty Criminal Mischief II regardless of whether there are any expenses incurred by the owner. MR. POSHARD stated CHAIRMAN VEZEY was correct. He replied the drafter of HB 389 felt this would be the cleanest way to make the change. Number 559 CHAIRMAN VEZEY read page 2, beginning with line 8, "(b) Except as provided in (c) of this section, criminal [CRIMINAL] mischief in the second degree is a class C felony." He stated the exception under (c) provides a class B felony if a person has a prior conviction. MR. POSHARD affirmed CHAIRMAN VEZEY. Number 570 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated in Section 3 of HB 389, criminal mischief III would still be a misdemeanor, but the exceptions in subsection (c) would be deleted. He asked for an explanation. Number 575 MR. POSHARD explained Section 3 was a conforming amendment that deletes the exception for the joy riding provision referring to if the damage was less than $500. Number 579 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated the question was over AS 11.46.484. Number 596 MR. POSHARD clarified Section 3, "[EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN (c) OF THIS SECTION,...]," refers back to Section 2, "the person drives, tows away, or takes the propelled vehicle of another." He noted Section 1 (4),"[THE PERSON DRIVES, TOWS AWAY, OR TAKES THE PROPELLED VEHICLE OF ANOTHER...]," was deleted. Therefore, Section 3 is the conforming amendment deleting exemption which directly referred to the language in Section 1(4). Number 607 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated the activity described under criminal mischief III is being classified as a class A misdemeanor, even though the existing statute provides it will be a class C felony if there were prior convictions. He felt HB 389 would be deleting the stipulation that under certain circumstances the offense could be a felony. He believed HB 389 made a violation of AS 11.46.484 a class A misdemeanor and would it not be a felony if was a repeat offense as described in Section 2(c). Number 620 MR. POSHARD clarified criminal mischief III would no longer be a penalty for joy riding or theft of an automobile because the language was deleted. Number 624 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER made clear MR. POSHARD was referring to page 2, lines 20-21. (REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG and SANDERS left the meeting at 9:36 a.m.) Number 634 MR. POSHARD stated there may some language left in AS 11.46.484 which may need to be deleted. He noticed Section 2 would allow for criminal mischief III to still be a misdemeanor. He noted this was not the intent when HB 389 was drafted. Number 643 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented confusion arises because all of the provisions of AS 11.46.484 are not seen in HB 389. She referenced AS 11.46.484(b) in Section 3, line 20, which deletes [EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN (c)...]. She clarified AS 11.46.484(c) includes the provisions of the joy riding statute which is being deleted on page 1 of HB 389. Number 650 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated page 1 is deleting wording in AS 11.46.482. Number 651 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER agreed with CHAIRMAN VEZEY. She responded AS 11.46.482 is referenced within AS 11.46.484 in the statute. AS 11.46.482(a)(4) which is deleted in HB 389 is embraced within AS 11.46.484 as an exception to the class A misdemeanor. Therefore, the language must be deleted to make it no longer a misdemeanor. Number 661 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he understood REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's clarification; however, he felt it did explain the changes to the other three sub-subsections of paragraph 3. He stated under current law AS 11.46.484(a)(2) would also be a felony, but HB 389 would change it to a class A misdemeanor. Number 666 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER responded the structure of the language in AS 11.46.484(b) provides an exception to it being a misdemeanor. Section (c) is being removed because HB 389 is changing the definition of the offense by deleting subsection (4). She believed the drafter was correct. Number 674 CHAIRMAN VEZEY commented more work would have to be done on Section 3, but not at this time. He inquired about Section 4. MR. POSHARD replied Section 4 was a conforming amendment to AS 11.46.486(a). The reference to AS 11.46.484(a)(2) was being deleted on page 3, line 1. Number 692 CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired about Section 5. MR. POSHARD replied Section 5 deleted another reference to AS 11.46.482(a)(4) on line 4, page 3. On page 3, line 3, the word "third" is replaced with "second" to comply with the intent of HB 389. TAPE 94-35, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified that Section 5 was a housekeeping measure. He asked about Section 6. Number 015 MR. POSHARD replied Section 6 dealt with sentencing. CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated Section 6 would mandate a minimum sentence. Number 019 MR. POSHARD agreed with CHAIRMAN VEZEY. The misdemeanor charge would be changed to a felony charge. Number 043 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER referred to the "Assumptions" section on page 2 of the Department of Corrections' fiscal note. It states, "The Municipality of Anchorage, which has its own `joy riding' law now, prosecutes an additional 35 such cases per year... It is assumed that the bill would have the effect of converting all the Municipality misdemeanor cases into State felony cases." She asked if this effect has been discussed. She was concerned about the statewide trend of all misdemeanor cases not being prosecuted at the municipal level, thereby leaving the state to "pick up the bag." MR. POSHARD said he could not comment because they have not spoken with the prosecutor's office for the municipality of Anchorage. Number 072 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated it would be worthwhile to find out their intentions as to whether or not they plan to continue to prosecute joy riding violations as misdemeanors. If the municipality of Anchorage did intend to continue, Department of Corrections may be able to down scale their fiscal note and reduce the state financial impact. Number 086 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he would like to see how much actual property damage is involved in joy riding. If $1.5 million were to be spent on the incarceration of offenders, their cost to society should also be examined. MR. POSHARD answered he did not know how much damage is done statewide, but he did have figures for Anchorage. Over the past 5 years, approximately $51 million dollars in vehicles had been taken, of which nearly $6 million have never been recovered. Number 108 CHAIRMAN VEZEY commented those items not recovered would not fall under the statute referred to in HB 389. Those items would be designated under theft. Number 110 MR. POSHARD affirmed CHAIRMAN VEZEY. He stated they contend that increasing the penalty for joy riding would also reduce theft because they would now both be carrying a felony charge. He noted many of the vehicles involved in joy riding do end up with damage to them. This proposes an added cost to insurance companies and victims. Number 129 CHAIRMAN VEZEY mentioned the fine connected with the charge of joy riding and the possibility of short-term jail time for those convicted. He stated the loss of a driver's license could be considered as a penalty for joy riding in HB 389. He commented most people convicted of joy riding do not get jail time and may or may not pay their fine; however, they still have their license intact. Number 159 MR. POSHARD responded CHAIRMAN VEZEY's assumptions about those individuals who commonly joy ride were correct. Regarding license revocation, he stated REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND was open to changes on HB 389. HB 389 was meant to facilitate discussion on different means to curb joy riding. Number 177 CHAIRMAN VEZEY, hearing no more questions, held HB 389 in committee for further review. He asked MR. POSHARD to ask REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND to examine Section 3, therewith a sponsor statement could be provided in explanation. He was not convinced that the penalty in Section 3 was not being reduced. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN VEZEY, having no more business before the committee, adjourned the meeting at 9:54 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|