Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/27/2013 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR9 | |
| SB36 | |
| HB24 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SJR 9 | ||
HB 24-SELF DEFENSE
2:08:59 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of HB 24. [CSHB
24(JUD) was before the committee.]
2:09:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, joint prime sponsor of HB 24, said
HB 24 is "An Act relating to self-defense in any place where a
person has a right to be." He explained that the bill would
extend the rights of the castle doctrine to any place in Alaska
where a person has a legal right to be. However, the bill does
not change the justification clauses. He noted that the House
Judiciary Committee made a slight change and placed the word
"other" between the words "any" and "place" [on page 2, line 3
to clarify that the proposed new AS 11.81.335(b)(5) addresses
locations other than those already outlined in existing AS
11.81.335(b)(1) and (3).] He summarized that the bill allows
Alaskans to protect themselves and their families when they are
in any place they have a right to be.
2:12:08 PM
SENATOR DYSON offered his understanding that to use deadly force
a person has to be in fear of death or serious bodily harm.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN confirmed that the justification clause in
AS 11.81.335(a) says that a person may use deadly force in self-
defense "to the extent that a person reasonably believes that
the use of deadly force is necessary against death; serious
physical injury; kidnapping, except what is described as
custodial interference in the first degree; sexual assault in
the first and second degrees; sexual abuse of a minor in the
first degree; or robbery in any degree."
SENATOR DYSON said he wanted it on the record that the
legislation does not exclude the fact that for a person to be
justified in using deadly force the person must be in fear of
their life or serious physical injury. This does not give
blanket permission for people to shoot somebody.
2:13:22 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE highlighted that AS 11.81.335(b) goes on to say
"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" on premises the person owns or leases, resides or is
a guest. The bill does not change that except as outlined under
subsection (a).
She asked for the reasoning underlying the House Judiciary
amendment to insert "other" between the words "any" and "place"
[on page 2, line 3].
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said that body wanted to clarify that
paragraph (5) identifies a place other than a person's home or
business.
CHAIR COGHILL asked for an explanation of the debate that took
place on the House floor and where the sponsor stood on the
proposed amendment relating to robbery.
2:15:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN explained that current statue says a
person has the right to use deadly force in the defense of self
in robbery in any degree. The proposed amendment would have
eliminated the possibility to use deadly force for robbery in
the second degree. He did not support the amendment because
circumstances can be nuanced and change in a split second. AS
11.41.500, robbery in the first degree, involves a threat of
physical injury. AS 11.41.510, robbery in the second degree,
does not involve a threat or physical injury. He relayed that he
respected the fact that previous legislators included all
robbery.
CHAIR COGHILL offered his understanding that robbery involves
taking from somebody as opposed to thievery.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN reiterated that he did not support the
floor amendment proposed in the other body.
2:19:05 PM
REX SHATTUCK, Staff to Representative Mark Neuman, sponsor of HB
24, added that robbery is typically against a person. It doesn't
matter what is being taken; if there is a weapon or indication
of serious threat, it is against a person. He emphasized that
the deliberations are about protecting the rights of an
individual.
CHAIR COGHILL said the law should be very clear because people
won't be thinking about the fine points of law when confronted
by a violent act.
2:20:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he spent considerable time discussing
the point with legislative legal and decided that it was
appropriate to keep the current statute.
2:21:02 PM
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison, National Rifle Association,
said the NRA supports HB 24. He said this important self-defense
legislation provides that a law-abiding person who is justified
in using deadly force in self-defense has no duty to retreat
from an attack if the person is in a place he or she has a legal
right to be. He emphasized that this only affects cases where a
person is justified. He explained that current Alaska law
provides that there is no duty to retreat if a person who is
justified in using deadly force in self-defense is on premises
they own, lease, reside, or work. If the person is in any other
place and knows he or she can retreat from an encounter, the
person is legally required to do so. In an encounter that
requires a person to use deadly force in self-defense, the
person must first consider justification and then retreat. The
only time retreat becomes a consideration is when the person has
determined he or she is justified in taking action.
AS 11.81.335 and AS 11.81.330 build on each other to create the
legal requirement for justification, and the bottom line is that
a person may only use deadly force in self-defense if the person
reasonably believes it is necessary against an imminent threat
of death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault,
and robbery. To employ self-defense a person also must satisfy
both subjective and objective standards. The subjective standard
is that the person must actually believe that deadly force is
necessary. The objective standard is that a reasonable person
would have to hold that belief under the circumstances. There
are also certain circumstances that specifically do not justify
the use of deadly or nondeadly force. These are if a person was
engaged in mutual combat; if a person provoked the other
person's conduct; if the person using self-defense was the
initial aggressor; or if the person was involved in felonious or
gang activity.
He recapped that a person using deadly force in self-defense
must have justification and must consider in a split second
whether to respond to an aggressor with force. Removing the
question as to whether the person can retreat with complete
safety means one less thing a potential victim must consider in
what may be a life-or-death, split-second decision. Removing the
duty to retreat does not change the fact that a person must have
justification.
MR. JUDY refuted the argument that the bill promotes violence
saying that a person may only use deadly force when they
reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent an imminent
threat. He said he also believes that the opposition is
mischaracterizing the justification statute. Under existing law,
a person who resists an aggressor bears the risk of a finding
that while the response was proportional to the reasonably
perceived threat, the person overestimated the difficulty of
getting away safely and is therefore guilty of a crime. He said
that removing the retreat provision shifts some of the risk back
to the aggressor. Noting that opponents argue that the bill will
benefit dangerous criminals, he emphasized that the duty to
retreat actually protects persons against whom defense of force
would otherwise be justified. He concluded that law-abiding
citizens should not fear criminal prosecution when they stand
their ground and defend themselves without retreating when
they're justified and in a place they have a legal right to be.
2:29:16 PM
CHAIR COGHILL noted that Quinlan Steiner was available to answer
questions. He highlighted that the committee heard the bill
several times in previous years. He said he was satisfied that
gunplay between competing groups falls under justification with
regard to mutual combat and provocation.
2:30:17 PM
SENATOR DYSON commented that it is instructive to read the
sections on self-defense in AS 11.81.340 and AS 11.81.350
because they expand on other areas where the use of deadly force
is justified. He offered his belief that HB 24 does not affect
those sections.
2:32:12 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN agreed. He asked to distribute a letter
[dated March 28, 2012] to the former Judiciary Committee chair
from Attorney General Geraghty who said, "The fact that
defendants may attempt to take advantage of the law once it is
on the books should not dissuade us from enacting laws that
protect a citizen's right to legitimate self-defense outside the
home."
CHAIR COGHILL said he initially didn't intend to take action on
the bill today, but he hadn't heard a lot of other dialog at
this point.
SENATOR DYSON said there was a lively debate in the other body,
and he had given the issue a lot of thought for the past three
years so he was comfortable moving the bill along.
CHAIR COGHILL said he wanted to make sure that the committee
heard about the debate that took place on the floor in the other
body. He said he was satisfied and was willing to accept a
motion.
2:34:19 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE moved to report CS for HB 24, version \U from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
2:34:33 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced that without objection CSHB 24(JUD)
moved from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Senate Bill 36 - 1 25 13.pdf |
SJUD 3/27/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 36 |
| Senate Bill 36 - Sectional Analysis from Legal Services.pdf |
SJUD 3/27/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 36 |
| Senate Bill 36 - Sponsor Substitute.pdf |
SJUD 3/27/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 36 |
| Senate Bill 36 - Summary of changes in sponsor substitute.pdf |
SJUD 3/27/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 36 |
| Fiscal Note DMVA.pdf |
SJUD 3/27/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 36 |
| Fiscal Note AST.pdf |
SJUD 3/27/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 36 |
| SCHB 24.pdf |
SJUD 3/27/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| Section 11 printout.pdf |
SJUD 3/27/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 3/27/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| Fiscal Notes.pdf |
SJUD 3/27/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| Letter from Alzheimer's Assoc.pdf |
SJUD 3/27/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 36 |