Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)

02/08/2019 01:30 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:32:37 PM Start
01:33:21 PM SB32
02:59:01 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= SB 32 CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
-- Teleconference <Invitation Only> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        SB 32-CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:33:21 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
SENATE  BILL  NO.  32,  "An  Act relating  to  criminal  law  and                                                               
procedure;  relating   to  controlled  substances;   relating  to                                                               
probation;  relating  to  sentencing;   relating  to  reports  of                                                               
involuntary  commitment;   amending  Rule  6,  Alaska   Rules  of                                                               
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the meeting.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES  reviewed committee action  on SB 32.  The committee                                                               
heard an  introduction of  the bill on  2/6/19 and  Mr. Henderson                                                               
reviewed the sectional analysis of the bill through Section 20.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
She remarked  that during these  hearings the committee  will not                                                               
consider   amendments  to   the  bill.   After  consulting   with                                                               
legislative ethics and counsel,  in accordance with AS 24.60.030,                                                               
it  has come  to  her attention  that she  may  have an  indirect                                                               
conflict on this  legislation. She said she is  working to ensure                                                               
that the public  is heard, and the integrity  of this legislative                                                               
process is above reproach.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES recognized that  Representatives Knopp and Josephson                                                               
have joined the meeting.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:35:34 PM                                                                                                                    
ROBERT HENDERSON, Assistant  Attorney General, Criminal Division,                                                               
Central Office, Department  of Law, reaffirmed the goal  of SB 32                                                               
is to return discretion to  prosecutors and judges to ensure that                                                               
adequate  sentences  are allowed  under  the  law, and  to  allow                                                               
judges to  impose sentences when  necessary. He related  that the                                                               
Department  of   Law  (DOL)  found   that  Senate  Bill   91  had                                                               
significantly focused on the rehabilitation  of the offender with                                                               
less  focus on  the victim  and the  community. He  said that  is                                                               
contrary  to  the  sentencing   criteria  that  prosecutors  must                                                               
follow.  This bill  also focuses  on  other sentencing  criteria,                                                               
including  the seriousness  of the  offense,  restoration of  the                                                               
victim, and reaffirmation  of societal norms. That  does not mean                                                               
that rehabilitation is not important  since it will always remain                                                               
an important factor.  However, it cannot be the  only factor that                                                               
is considered, he said.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:36:57 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HENDERSON continued  the  sectional analysis  of  SB 32.  He                                                               
referred to Sections  21-22 of the sectional  analysis which read                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section 21:  Clean up amendment for  change that occurs                                                                    
     in section 22, making failure to appear a crime.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Section 22: Removes 30-day  grace period for defendants                                                                    
     during which it was not a  crime to fail to show up for                                                                    
     a  hearing. Under  current law,  it is  not a  crime to                                                                    
     fail to  appear for a  court hearing unless  the person                                                                    
     goes 30 days or longer  without making contact with the                                                                    
     court  or fails  to  appear with  the  intent being  to                                                                    
     avoid prosecution.  This section removes both  of those                                                                    
     limitations.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON referred  to page  12 of  Section 21,  which is  a                                                               
conforming amendment  that makes a  failure to appear  a criminal                                                               
offense.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
He  said that  Section 22  would amend  the crime  of failure  to                                                               
appear for those on release on  bail. Senate Bill 91 made failure                                                               
to appear  a violation,  punishable by a  $1,000 fine  unless the                                                               
offender  absconded  for  more  than  30  days.  After  reviewing                                                               
Section  22, he  added that  the  penalty for  failure to  appear                                                               
would  be a  class C  felony if  the person  is on  conditions of                                                               
release  for  a  felony  and  the penalty  would  be  a  class  A                                                               
misdemeanor  if the  person is  on  conditions of  release for  a                                                               
misdemeanor.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:38:05 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON turned to Section  23 of the sectional analysis for                                                               
SB 32, which read as follows:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section 23:  Amends the  crime of  violating conditions                                                                    
     of release  which relates to conditions  imposed by the                                                                    
     court  on persons  on  pretrial  release. This  section                                                                    
     makes it a class A  misdemeanor for a person to violate                                                                    
     their conditions of release if  they are on release for                                                                    
     a  felony and  a class  B misdemeanor  if they  violate                                                                    
     while on conditions for a misdemeanor.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON reviewed Section 23  and added that Senate Bill 91,                                                               
as amended by  Senate Bill 54, made all  violations of conditions                                                               
of  release   for  persons   on  pretrial   release  a   class  B                                                               
misdemeanor, punishable by up to five days in jail.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:38:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD  asked  for further  clarification  on  whether                                                               
Sections 22-23 would revert to pre-Senate Bill 91 law.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON  agreed that  Section  22  related to  failure  to                                                               
appear  and  Section  23  related   to  violating  conditions  of                                                               
release, which would  repeal the penalty provision  and revert to                                                               
pre-Senate Bill 91 law.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:39:08 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON further  explained that Section 23  would amend the                                                               
crime of violation of conditions  of release. He said that Senate                                                               
Bill 54,  which amended  Senate Bill 91,  made all  violations of                                                               
conditions of release  for persons on pretrial release  a class B                                                               
misdemeanor punishable by up to five days in jail.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
He said that [Section 23] would  amend the kinds of violations of                                                               
conditions of  release to make  it a  class A misdemeanor  if the                                                               
person violates the conditions of  release for a felony. It would                                                               
make  it  a  class  B  misdemeanor if  the  person  violates  the                                                               
conditions of release for a misdemeanor.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  turned to the  sectional analysis for  Section 24,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section 24:  Makes it a  class A misdemeanor  to refuse                                                                    
     to provide a DNA sample  when arrested for a qualifying                                                                    
     offense.  Under  current  law,  those  arrested  for  a                                                                    
     qualifying  offense  must  provide  a  DNA  sample  for                                                                    
     inclusion  in  a DNA  database.  However,  there is  no                                                                    
    enforcement   mechanism.   This   section   adds   that                                                                     
     enforcement mechanism.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
This section would  amend the crime of violation  of condition of                                                               
release  to  a class  A  misdemeanor  if  the person  violates  a                                                               
condition of  release for a  felony. It would  make it a  class B                                                               
misdemeanor if the  person violates a condition of  release for a                                                               
misdemeanor. In  response to Senator Reinbold,  he clarified that                                                               
Section 23 of  SB 32 would make  it a class A  misdemeanor if the                                                               
person  is  released  on  bail  for   a  felony  and  a  class  B                                                               
misdemeanor if the person is  released on bail for a misdemeanor.                                                               
Although  he could  not  currently access  the  2014 statutes  to                                                               
confirm the  pre-2016 law, he  recalled that this  provision will                                                               
revert the penalty provisions to  pre-Senate Bill 91 and pre-2016                                                               
law.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:41:09 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  acknowledged that  the sentiment  in her  office is                                                               
that  Mr. Henderson  is  correct.  She asked  him  to verify  the                                                               
penalty provisions to be certain.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:41:19 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  asked for further  clarification on  the rationale                                                               
for this change.  He said that a condition of  release lists what                                                               
the person cannot  do while on bail for the  original offense. He                                                               
said  the goal  is for  the offender  to behave  well during  the                                                               
transition  period  into  the  community in  order  to  become  a                                                               
functional member of society. He  asked for further clarification                                                               
whether the penalty provision under  Senate Bill 54 for violating                                                               
a condition of release is to  return the offender to prison under                                                               
the original sentence.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON answered  that if a person violates  a condition of                                                               
release while on bail, the court  has the authority to revoke the                                                               
bail and impose  a new bail on the  underlying offense. Violating                                                               
of a  condition of  release means  a new  criminal charge  can be                                                               
added  for  not   following  the  court's  order,   he  said.  He                                                               
characterized  it  as  a  new  sanction.  This  section  provides                                                               
additional incentive for the offender  so the person knows that a                                                               
consequence will be added if the  person does not follow the bail                                                               
order. In further response to  Senator Kiehl, he agreed that this                                                               
would relate to "pre-conviction" bail.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:42:53 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether  stacking additional criminal charges                                                               
might interfere  with dealing with  the original offense.  When a                                                               
person faces  charge after  charge being  stacked up,  the person                                                               
could plead to whatever seems  easiest. He expressed concern that                                                               
prosecutors  would  not have  the  ability  during sentencing  to                                                               
appropriately deal with the underlying offense.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON responded that prosecutors  always have the ability                                                               
to  advocate  for the  appropriate  sentence  for the  underlying                                                               
criminal offense. In  fact, that charge is  separate and distinct                                                               
from  the violation  of a  condition of  release. He  agreed that                                                               
sometimes violating a  condition of release may be  joined to the                                                               
underlying  offense  for the  purposes  of  trial or  resolution.                                                               
However,  sometimes  "violating  conditions of  release"  can  be                                                               
charged separately and result in a separate case number.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:44:09 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  acknowledged that  his experience may  be limited,                                                               
and he  may lack  the appropriate perspective.  He said  he would                                                               
welcome a discussion on that topic.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON   welcomed  further  discussions.  He   said  that                                                               
resolving cases is fact dependent and case specific.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:45:09 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  related his  understanding  that  in terms  of                                                               
"violating  conditions of  release,"  that this  bill  is a  full                                                               
repeal of Senate Bill 91. The  reason for "the stick" is that the                                                               
person is  out on release "with  a deal." The person  is released                                                               
pre-trial if the person meets  certain conditions, and the person                                                               
faces consequences when the requirements are not met.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON agreed.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE said that the  consequences are reasonable ones,                                                               
scaled specifically to the original crime.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON agreed.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  offered his  belief that  this is  a reasonable                                                               
approach. He  surmised this might  be what has been  missing, and                                                               
it may highlight why the public  was so upset about the direction                                                               
taken in [Senate Bill 91].                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:46:05 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed  her concern. She said  she reviewed a                                                               
pre-Senate Bill 91 chart that  showed the penalties for violating                                                               
conditions  of  release. She  related  that  pre-Senate Bill  91,                                                               
violating conditions of release was  a class A misdemeanor if the                                                               
underlying crime was  a felony. She expressed  concern that under                                                               
the bill the penalty is  only a misdemeanor. Further, the penalty                                                               
is  a  class  B  misdemeanor  if the  underlying  offense  was  a                                                               
misdemeanor. She  said if  her memory  serves her  correctly, the                                                               
pre-Senate Bill 91 penalty for  class A misdemeanors would result                                                               
in 0-365 days in jail, and  for class B misdemeanors would result                                                               
in 0-90 days.  Under Senate Bill 91, the  penalty for misdemeanor                                                               
offenses  was  reduced  to  0-10 days  for  class  B  misdemeanor                                                               
offenses  and 0-30  days for  class A  misdemeanor offenses.  She                                                               
asked whether that is correct.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  answered that  is correct. He  said he  would like                                                               
the  record to  be  clear. He  said Senate  Bill  91 reduced  the                                                               
penalty for class B misdemeanors from  90 days to 10 days. Senate                                                               
Bill 91  also reduced the  penalty for class A  misdemeanors from                                                               
365  days  to 30  days,  absent  aggravating factors  or  certain                                                               
offenses.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   REINBOLD  expressed   concern  that   Senate  Bill   91                                                               
dramatically  reduced  the penalties  for  class  A and  class  B                                                               
misdemeanors. She elaborated on the effects of Senate Bill 54.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES interjected  that she would like to focus  on SB 32.                                                               
In further  response to Senator  Reinbold, she asked to  focus on                                                               
SB 32 and not Senate Bill 54.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:48:38 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL referred to Section  22 and asked for the rationale                                                               
for the law being repealed.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
He referred to  [page 12, lines 21-25 of SB  32] and the language                                                               
being deleted,  "(A) DOES NOT  MAKE CONTACT  WITH THE COURT  OR A                                                               
JUDICIAL  OFFICER WITHIN  30 DAYS  AFTER THE  PERSON DOES  24 NOT                                                               
APPEAR AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF A SCHEDULED HEARING; OR."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether this  language might rob the court of                                                               
its discretion if  someone on bail inadvertently  made a mistake;                                                               
for  example, if  the  person overslept.  He  asked whether  this                                                               
would give the person an incentive to skip town.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON  said that  is  a  great question;  however,  that                                                               
circumstance is already  covered. He referred to  current law, AS                                                               
11.56.730 (b), which provides an  affirmative defense for failure                                                               
to appear  when unforeseeable circumstances outside  the person's                                                               
control prevented  the person  from appearing  before court  or a                                                               
judicial  officer  for the  scheduled  hearing.  The person  must                                                               
contact the  court orally and  in writing immediately  upon being                                                               
able to do  so. He stated that this defense  remains in law under                                                               
SB 32.  It also existed in  pre-Senate Bill 91 law.  The scenario                                                               
Senator  Kiehl described  is  not covered  under  Section 22,  he                                                               
said.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:50:36 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON reviewed Sections  24-25 of the sectional analysis,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section 24:  Makes it a  class A misdemeanor  to refuse                                                                    
     to provide a DNA sample  when arrested for a qualifying                                                                    
     offense.  Under  current  law,  those  arrested  for  a                                                                    
     qualifying  offense  must  provide  a  DNA  sample  for                                                                    
     inclusion  in  a DNA  database.  However,  there is  no                                                                    
     enforcement   mechanism.   This   section   adds   that                                                                    
     enforcement mechanism.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section 25:  Clarifies that refusing  to provide  a DNA                                                                    
     sample  after  conviction,  as a  part  of  a  person's                                                                    
     sentence,  or   because  the  person  is   required  to                                                                    
     register as  a sex  offender or  child kidnapper,  is a                                                                    
     class C felony.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:51:29 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  related her understanding  that this goes  beyond a                                                               
repeal since it would add a tool not previously available.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:51:39 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL asked  whether existing law would allow  a judge to                                                               
order a DNA  sample from a person who refuses  to provide one. He                                                               
asked whether any mechanisms exist without the bill.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said that the  court could hold someone in contempt                                                               
until the person provided the DNA  sample. He said that the Court                                                               
of  Appeals has  held  that  the prosecution  does  not have  the                                                               
authority  to file  contempt  charges, that  only  the court  can                                                               
authorize the  charge. However,  it would  be a  very inefficient                                                               
mechanism and way  to obtain DNA samples, he said.   Creating the                                                               
enforcement  mechanism  to  require  a  DNA  sample  upon  arrest                                                               
provides law enforcement  with the necessary tools  to obtain the                                                               
DNA sample through a new criminal offense, he said.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:52:55 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  asked if  the reason  for this  is to  catch "cold                                                               
cases."                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON answered  yes, that is exactly the  reason. The DNA                                                               
database  or Combined  DNA Index  System,  known as  CODIS, is  a                                                               
powerful  law enforcement  tool. It  has allowed  law enforcement                                                               
the  ability  to get  the  DNA  into  the  system as  quickly  as                                                               
possible, which protects the public "downstream."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether he  would characterize this as closing                                                               
a loophole.  She asked  whether this  was something  that perhaps                                                               
was overlooked.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON  agreed  that  Sections 24-26  close  the  gap  or                                                               
loophole.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:54:12 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE asked  whether  the required  submittal of  DNA                                                               
sample and  charge for refusal  has passed  constitutional muster                                                               
in the U.S.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said he was  unsure if  it has been  challenged in                                                               
Alaska,  but  it  is  a  tool used  throughout  the  country.  He                                                               
characterized the CODIS  database as a robust system.  He said he                                                               
has  confidence  that  the constitutionality  of  this  provision                                                               
would  be upheld.  He could  not  specifically recall  if it  has                                                               
already been upheld.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:55:14 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES asked  Mr. Henderson  to follow-up  on this  and he                                                               
agreed to do so.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:55:23 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE   agreed  it  provides  a   powerful  tool.  He                                                               
expressed concern  about Alaskans'  rights to privacy  since that                                                               
has not been adequately defined. He  was just curious if any case                                                               
law exists to address this.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said that there  are several reasons it  would not                                                               
violate a person's  privacy. He said the  qualifying offenses are                                                               
very specific and  unique. The two offenses are  crimes against a                                                               
person, and felony DUI offenses,  he said. Protections were added                                                               
to address people  who are acquitted or when  the court dismisses                                                               
the  charges. In  those instances,  the DNA  is removed  from the                                                               
system, he  said. He  characterized this  as the  balance between                                                               
the need to ensure that  the public has necessary information and                                                               
helping to solve cold cases.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:56:40 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD  said that people involved  in criminal activity                                                               
lose some of  their rights. She said this provision  will help to                                                               
ensure speedy trials  and avoid wrongful convictions.  This is an                                                               
important tool for law enforcement, she said.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:57:26 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  asked  for  further  clarification  whether  this                                                               
includes 100 percent of felonies and any crime against a person.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON referred  to AS  44.41.035 (b),  which read,  "The                                                               
Department of Public Safety shall  collect for inclusion into the                                                               
DNA  identification  registration  system a  blood  sample,  oral                                                               
sample, or both,  from (1) a person convicted in  this state of a                                                               
crime against a person  or a felony under AS 11,  AS 26.05, or AS                                                         
28.35, ."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
He also read  AS 44.41035 (b) (6): a person  arrested for a crime                                                               
against a person or a felony under  AS 11, AS 26.05, or AS 28.35,                                                         
 ." He agreed  that it was any crime against  a person, including                                                               
misdemeanor domestic  violence offenses,  any felony,  and felony                                                               
DUI.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:59:06 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL noticed  that in  Sections 25-26  the penalty  for                                                               
refusing to  provide a DNA  sample is  sometimes a felony  and in                                                               
other cases  is a misdemeanor.  He asked  him the reason  for the                                                               
difference.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said that Section  25 makes refusing to  provide a                                                               
DNA sample a class C felony  if convicted and Section 26 makes it                                                               
a  misdemeanor  if arrested.  Again,  this  provides balance,  he                                                               
said.  If you  fail  to provide  a DNA  sample  upon arrest,  the                                                               
penalty is  a misdemeanor. The  penalty for failure to  provide a                                                               
DNA sample  upon conviction is  a class  C felony, which  is also                                                               
current law.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON referred to Section 26, which read as follows:                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
       Section 26: Classification section. Classifies the                                                                       
      crime of violating an order to submit to DNA testing                                                                      
     upon arrest is a class A misdemeanor.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
He  said  this  provides  an enforcement  mechanism  specific  to                                                               
arrest.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:00:31 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE   said  he  supports  the   collection  of  DNA                                                               
evidence.  However,  he  would  like  to  be  certain  that  this                                                               
provision is constitutional.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON offered to provide an answer to the committee.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:01:37 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON turned to Section  27 of the sectional analysis for                                                               
SB 32, which read as follows:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section  27: Enacts  a  generalized  threat statute  to                                                                    
     cover when an individual  threatens to commit a serious                                                                    
     crime which  reasonably places another person  in fear.                                                                    
     Covers real  threats of violence  and not  simply false                                                                    
     threats.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said this adds a  new provision that is not related                                                               
to Senate Bill  91. He explained that this focuses  on the effect                                                               
of the  threat, not on  its falseness.  The prior law  related to                                                               
terroristic  threatening  was  designed  and  implemented  as  an                                                               
aggravated  form of  making a  false report.  Under current  law,                                                               
terrorist threatening  is only  a crime if  the threat  is false.                                                               
This changes it to add both real and false threats.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:02:46 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES asked  whether the prior law made it  a crime if the                                                               
threat was imminent or if it was false.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  explained that under  the crime of assault  in the                                                               
fourth degree, which  is misdemeanor assault, the  person makes a                                                               
threat if the person places someone  in fear by words or conduct.                                                               
However, if  the words  or threat has  an immediacy  component to                                                               
it, under the  crime of terrorist threatening, the  threat had to                                                               
be false.  This fixes that by  creating a new offense  that would                                                               
criminalize a generalized threat.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
He  explained that  these types  of  generalized threat  statutes                                                               
allow  law  enforcement  to  intervene  for  reports  of  threats                                                               
involving a school shooting, or  some type of catastrophic event,                                                               
such as  a bomb threat.  In those instances, law  enforcement can                                                               
take immediate action  and not wait until the  threat is imminent                                                               
or the  person has  taken a  substantial step.  These generalized                                                               
threat  statutes   have  been  upheld  nationwide,   because  the                                                               
person's  actions recklessly  placed someone  in fear  of serious                                                               
physical  injury, which  does not  infringe upon  someone's first                                                               
amendment rights.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:04:49 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES  said she  understood  the  intent. She  wanted  to                                                               
ensure  that  this   language  does  not  extend   the  crime  of                                                               
terroristic threatening  to a situation  in which two  people are                                                               
in a bar fight and one  of them threatens the other. She referred                                                               
to page  13 under Section  27, paragraph (1),  subparagraphs (A)-                                                               
(D), are joined by  "or." She referred to page 13,  line 29 to AS                                                               
11.56.810(a)(1) (A), which read,  "placing a person in reasonable                                                               
fear  of  serious  physical  injury to  any  person?"  She  asked                                                               
whether any confusion  would happen, such that the  person in the                                                               
bar would be charged with terroristic threatening.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON agreed that the  new crime of terroristic threat is                                                               
not  designed to  capture  the conduct  she  just described.  The                                                               
conduct of  a person in  a bar  who threatens to  assault someone                                                               
would fall under  the current assault statutes.  This language is                                                               
limited since  it would  place the person  in reasonable  fear of                                                               
serious  physical injury.  He explained  that  the term  "serious                                                               
physical injury" has  a specific definition under the  law and is                                                               
not just any  injury. It must be a substantial  injury that would                                                               
interfere  with  bodily  functions,  such  as  being  shot,  with                                                               
severely damaged body parts.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:07:17 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES acknowledged that if someone  in a bar had a gun the                                                               
crime would be clear. However, what  if the person in the bar was                                                               
strangling  someone. She  suggested  that  perhaps the  committee                                                               
needs to  better understand the definition  for "serious physical                                                               
injury." She wanted  to be sure that this language  does not cast                                                               
too wide a net.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  related his understanding that  a factual scenario                                                               
exists that could  capture a person in  terrorist threatening and                                                               
not the  assault statutes. However,  the criminal  division would                                                               
be looking  at the specific  intent of the language  when charges                                                               
are filed. The  DOL is not trying to  criminalize every potential                                                               
bar fight, but to provide  law enforcement the necessary tools to                                                               
intervene with safety threats.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES  said she wanted  to have this  on the record  to be                                                               
sure the intent  is clear. She acknowledged  that law enforcement                                                               
would likely realize the intent and distinction.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:08:49 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further  clarification on Mr. Henderson's                                                               
comments on the language for false threats.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON  said  that  in the  commentary  to  current  law,                                                               
terroristic threatening is  referred to as an  aggravated form of                                                               
making a false report.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KIEHL  asked whether  the  benefit  of switching  it  to                                                               
terroristic  threatening  would be  to  make  it a  more  serious                                                               
offense. He  asked whether terroristic threatening  in the second                                                               
degree would be more serious than an aggravated false report.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said  it would be the same level  of offense with a                                                               
class C  felony penalty.  The goal  is to  create a  statute that                                                               
ensures a crime  covers the threat when it is  real as opposed to                                                               
when it is  false, he said. One of the  necessary elements of the                                                               
current law is  that the threat has to be  false. For example, if                                                               
a person says, "I'm going to  blow up the school tomorrow" and it                                                               
is just  a joke, that  would be  covered. However, if  the person                                                               
has an  intent to  follow through  with it,  it is  not currently                                                               
covered in  the criminal  code. This  provision is  necessary, so                                                               
the state has the ability to stop that activity from happening.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:10:40 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE said  that the  reason for  AS 11.56.810(a)  is                                                               
key. The  language is almost  verbatim, including the  "or." This                                                               
language  would  essentially change  the  statute  from making  a                                                               
false report to committing the  crime of terroristic threatening.                                                               
He  related  his  understanding   that  previously,  the  statute                                                               
required that  it be a  false report and under  [proposed Section                                                               
27] it can be either, so long as that threat is communicated.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON answered that is correct.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:11:16 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON  turned to  Section 28  of the  sectional analysis,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
      Section 28: Makes the crime of disorderly conduct a                                                                       
       class B misdemeanor punishable by not more than 10                                                                       
     days.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said  that this would return  disorderly conduct to                                                               
a class  B misdemeanor, punishable up  to 10 days in  jail. Under                                                               
Senate Bill  91, the  maximum penalty for  district court  was 24                                                               
hours.  This returns  discretion on  disorderly conduct  cases to                                                               
the court  and prosecution, he  said. In response to  a question,                                                               
he clarified the penalty.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:12:11 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HENDERSON  offered  to cover  each  section  separately  but                                                               
highlighted  that Sections  29-37  collectively  return the  drug                                                               
laws  to pre-Senate  Bill  91 law.  He referred  to  a matrix  in                                                               
members'  packets.  He said  that  two  specific aspects  of  the                                                               
matrix  will be  relevant to  this conversation,  which are  drug                                                               
possession and distribution.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:13:12 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON  turned to  Section 29  of the  sectional analysis,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section  29: Reenacts  class A  felony level  crime for                                                                    
     the distribution  of schedule IA  controlled substances                                                                    
     (heroin) and making methamphetamine.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON explained that this  relates to distribution of any                                                               
amount  of a  schedule  IA controlled  substance, which  includes                                                               
opioids  and opioid  derivatives  such as  heroin, fentanyl,  and                                                               
morphine.   It    would   also   return   the    manufacture   of                                                               
methamphetamine to  a class A  felony offense. He  explained that                                                               
Senate Bill  91 moved the  manufacture of methamphetamine  from a                                                               
class A felony to a class B felony offense.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:14:16 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON read Section 30, which read as follows:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Section 30: Renames  AS 11.71.030, misconduct involving                                                                    
     a  controlled   substance  in  the  second   degree  to                                                                    
     misconduct  involving  a  controlled substance  in  the                                                                    
     third   degree.   Amends   the   statute   to   include                                                                    
     manufacturing  or  distribution  of  any  amount  of  a                                                                    
     schedule  IIA   or  IIIA  controlled   substance.  Also                                                                    
     repeals section of law regarding  the delivery of 1g or                                                                    
     more  of  a schedule  IA  controlled  substance or  2.5                                                                    
     grams  or more  of a  schedule IIA  or IIIA  controlled                                                                    
     substance as  the amendments in  the bill focus  on the                                                                    
     type of drug being  distributed and not necessarily the                                                                    
     amount.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
He  added  that  schedule   IIA  controlled  substances  includes                                                               
dangerous  stimulants, including  cocaine, methamphetamine,  LSD,                                                               
and PCP,  and mushrooms. The schedule  IIIA controlled substances                                                               
are anabolic steroids,  and depending on how  it is manufactured,                                                               
includes Spice [synthetic cannabinoids].  It also repeals Section                                                               
30, pages 16-17  of law for the distribution of  one gram or more                                                               
of a schedule IA controlled substance  or 2.5 grams of a schedule                                                               
IIA or IIIA controlled substance.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:15:46 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES asked  for further  clarification and  acknowledged                                                               
she might  be getting "into  the weeds." She referred  to Section                                                               
29,  which relates  to  a  class A  felony  for distributing  and                                                               
manufacturing schedule IA controlled  substances. She referred to                                                               
page  17, to  Section  30, [AS  11.71.030](a),  which relates  to                                                               
misconduct involving  a controlled substance in  the third degree                                                               
and relates  to manufacturing schedule IA  controlled substances.                                                               
She  asked whether  this  is  a smaller  amount  of  drugs or  to                                                               
otherwise explain the difference.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said he would  explain each subsection  of Section                                                               
30. He said that most of  the current language in AS 11.71.030(a)                                                               
will  be  repealed  by  Section  51.  What  will  remain  is  the                                                               
distribution  of any  schedule  IIA or  schedule IIIA  controlled                                                               
substance,  the distribution  of  any schedule  IVA,  VA, or  VIA                                                               
drugs  to a  person under  the age  of 19,  or possession  near a                                                               
school.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
He  referred   to  the  language  related   to  the  manufacture,                                                               
delivery,  or possession  with intent  to manufacture  or deliver                                                               
schedule IA controlled substances.  He directed attention to page                                                               
16, Sec. 30,  to AS 11.71.030(a)(1)(A), which read,  "one or more                                                               
preparations, compounds, mixtures, or  substances of an aggregate                                                               
weight of  one gram or  more containing a schedule  IA controlled                                                               
substance;" and said  that is repealed in Section  50. He related                                                               
that  subparagraphs (B),  (C), and  (D)  of Section  30 are  also                                                               
repealed.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:17:17 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES asked  why the  repealed language  is not  shown in                                                               
Section 30.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  explained that this  was a bill  drafting decision                                                               
to include the repealed language  together. He offered to further                                                               
explain. In further  response, he stated it  is standard drafting                                                               
protocol to group the repealed language.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:18:05 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE asked  the department for a  markup version that                                                               
shows the  effect of  the repealed  language in  the body  of the                                                               
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES agreed it would be helpful.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:18:41 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  REINBOLD  suggested  that  color  coding  could  help  and                                                               
elaborated on her request.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:19:25 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON agreed to provide a marked-up version.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:19:36 PM                                                                                                                    
At-ease.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:21:01 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:21:09 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON reviewed the repealed  provisions in Section 30. He                                                               
said that  [AS 11.71.030](a)(1) is  repealed in Section  50; that                                                               
[AS   11.71.030](a)(4),    related   to   the    manufacture   of                                                               
methamphetamines,  has been  repealed  since it  was  moved to  a                                                               
class A felony.  On page 17, [AS  11.71.030](a)(6), possession of                                                               
a listed chemical with intent  to manufacture methamphetamine was                                                               
repealed  and   moved  to   misconduct  involving   a  controlled                                                               
substance in  the second  degree. On  page 18.  [AS 11.71.030](a)                                                               
(7),  possess methamphetamine  in  an organic  solution, and  [AS                                                               
11.71.030(a)(8),  [related to  delivery of  methamphetamine] were                                                               
both repealed.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
He said that new language was  added related to distribution of a                                                               
schedule  IIA controlled  substance or  schedule IIIA  controlled                                                               
substance in [AS 11.71.030](a)(9), which read as follows:                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     (9)  under   circumstances  not  proscribed   under  AS                                                                
     11.71.021(a)(2)  (6),  manufactures   or  delivers  any                                                                
     amount of  a schedule IIA or  IIIA controlled substance                                                                
     or  possesses any  amount  of a  schedule  IIA or  IIIA                                                                
     controlled  substance  with  intent to  manufacture  or                                                                
     deliver.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:22:24 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON  read Sections 31-32  of the sectional  analysis of                                                               
SB 32, as follows:                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Section 31:  Conforming amendment  to the  changes made                                                                    
     in section 30.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Section 32:  Makes the  possession of  any amount  of a                                                                    
     schedule IA (heroin)  or IIA (methamphetamine, cocaine,                                                                    
     PCP, etc.) controlled substance  and various amounts of                                                                    
     IIIA, IVA, and VIA controlled substances a felony.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
He  said  that  the  language  in  paragraphs  (1)  and  (2)  are                                                               
unchanged, but  paragraph (3) is  new language that  reinstates a                                                               
felony  for possession  of  any amount  of  these very  dangerous                                                               
drugs.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:23:23 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  asked for  further clarification  [on marijuana                                                               
possession].  He  has  received  calls  from  licensed  marijuana                                                               
businesses.  He asked  for further  clarification that  licensees                                                               
possessing  legal   amounts  of   marijuana  and   growing  legal                                                               
quantities of marijuana are not covered by [Section 32].                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON answered that he  is absolutely right. He explained                                                               
that AS  11.71 deals  with unregulated  or illegal  marijuana and                                                               
does  not touch  upon  or reach  into AS  17.38,  related to  the                                                               
regulated marijuana industry.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:24:03 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  asked whether the  full repeal also  includes a                                                               
full  repeal of  the sentencing  changes, such  that the  class A                                                               
felony and class B felony for  distribution goes back to the pre-                                                               
Senate Bill 91 sentencing guidelines.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON answered that is correct.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:24:26 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD offered  her belief  that the  committee agrees                                                               
and is working together on this  issue. She said she thought this                                                               
was the most  important crime bill. She  related that prosecutors                                                               
and victims  have identified  this as one  of the  core problems.                                                               
She  described the  cycle of  drug  use that  leads to  burglary,                                                               
robbery, assault, or  even homicide. She remarked  that this bill                                                               
is so important and urged giving law enforcement these tools.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:25:50 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON  said that Senator  Reinbold made a  very important                                                               
point and  one of the  things this  bill does is  to reprioritize                                                               
prosecution and interdiction  of drug offenses, which  is what is                                                               
seen throughout this bill.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON continued  his  sectional analysis  of  SB 32.  He                                                               
reviewed Sections 33-34, which read as follows:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
      Section 33: Conforming amendment to the changes made                                                                      
     in section 32.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Section  34:  Removes   possession  of  most  dangerous                                                                    
     controlled  substances  from  the crime  of  misconduct                                                                    
     involving a  controlled substance in the  fifth degree,                                                                    
     as those  possessory crimes would  be a class  C felony                                                                    
     under the bill.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
He said  Section 34 reinstates  the prior misconduct  involving a                                                               
controlled  substance in  the fifth  degree, which  is a  class A                                                               
misdemeanor.  This would  move possession  of the  most dangerous                                                               
drugs,  such  as  heroin, methamphetamine,  and  cocaine  from  a                                                               
misdemeanor level [to a class C felony].                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:26:43 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON reviewed Sections  35-36 of the sectional analysis,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section 35: Renames  AS 11.71.060 "misconduct involving                                                                    
     a controlled substance in the  sixth degree" to conform                                                                    
     with the changes made to the drug offense statutes.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section   36:    Conforming   amendment    to   statute                                                                    
     prohibiting   prosecution  of   individuals  who   seek                                                                    
     medical or law enforcement  assistance for a person who                                                                    
     is overdosing.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
He stated  that Section  35 will return  to the  2016, pre-Senate                                                               
Bill  91 law.  He  said  that Section  36  relates  to the  "Good                                                               
Samaritan  Law" in  Alaska, which  prohibits  the prosecution  of                                                               
individuals for  certain drug offenses  when an  individual seeks                                                               
medical or law enforcement intervention.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:27:27 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES remarked  that Mr. Henderson has  gotten through the                                                               
drug classification changes. She  summarized that pre-Senate Bill                                                               
91 had  six degrees,  that Senate  Bill 91  changed that  to five                                                               
degrees, and SB 32 would bring it back to six degrees.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON answered  that is correct. He  said that everything                                                               
moved down one, except for  the unclassified misconduct involving                                                               
a controlled substance in the first degree.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:27:59 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE asked  for further  clarification  on the  drug                                                               
possessions.  He related  his  understanding  that the  penalties                                                               
returned to a class C felony  and a class A misdemeanor. He asked                                                               
whether  the  section  has  been   retained  that  allows  for  a                                                               
suspended sentence to  provide a treatment plan  for a first-time                                                               
offender. He said this would  help the person turn around his/her                                                               
life.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON  answered  that  Senator  Micciche  is  absolutely                                                               
correct. He  related this provides several  tools. The department                                                               
has always had a suspended  imposition of sentence (SIS), but the                                                               
[criminal justice  system] will  also have  a suspended  entry of                                                               
judgment  (SEJR), which  is a  sentence agreement  for those  who                                                               
complete treatment  and the  judgment is  never entered,  and the                                                               
conviction will not stand.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:29:02 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON  turned to  Section 37  of the  sectional analysis,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section 37:  Increases the maximum period  of probation                                                                    
     for  felony sex  offenses  from 15  years  to 25.  Also                                                                    
     increases  the  maximum  period of  probation  for  any                                                                    
     other offense to 10 years.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON elaborated  that Senate Bill 91  limited the length                                                               
of time for  probation, depending on the  offense and conviction.                                                               
This  section  would return  that  discretion  to the  court  and                                                               
allows the court to place someone  on probation for the length of                                                               
time necessary,  based on the  judge's judgment as to  what would                                                               
be an appropriate length of probation.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:29:49 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES asked  for further  clarification  on whether  this                                                               
section would  apply to  those sentenced  during the  period that                                                               
Senate Bill  91 was in effect  or if those parties  would receive                                                               
shorter probation periods.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON  said  that  would  relate  to  the  applicability                                                               
sections. The  criminal penalties that would  govern the criminal                                                               
conduct would  be what existed  at the time the  person committed                                                               
the offense.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES asked for the current probation time.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON answered that the  2016, pre-Senate Bill 91, felony                                                               
sex  offenses were  up to  25 years  of probation  and all  other                                                               
offenses  were  10  years.  Under the  current  law,  felony  sex                                                               
offenses has a maximum probation  term of 15 years, felony crimes                                                               
against a  person has a maximum  probation term of 10  years, and                                                               
felony non  person crimes  has a maximum  probation term  of five                                                               
years,  and misdemeanor  person  crimes has  a maximum  probation                                                               
term of three years, and  misdemeanor DUI has a maximum probation                                                               
term of  two years, and  all other  misdemeanors have a  one year                                                               
term.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:31:14 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD remarked that this section is so important.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:31:33 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE referred  to drug distribution. He  said that in                                                               
the  next committee  of  referral,  he may  be  interested in  an                                                               
escalator   on  the   maximum  felony   sentencing  for   certain                                                               
quantities  of  distribution.  He asked  whether  the  department                                                               
could assist him on proposed language.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said  that if Senator Micciche has  questions as to                                                               
the  impacts  of  sentencing enhancements,  that  the  department                                                               
would be available to help.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:32:29 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  asked whether  he  could  give  an example  of  a                                                               
misdemeanor that needs 10 years of probation.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  answered yes.  He related a  scenario for  a theft                                                               
case, when the restitution is  outstanding. The alternative is to                                                               
have the  restitution judgment become  a civil judgment  that the                                                               
victim must execute. In that  instance, the victim would not have                                                               
the benefit  of the criminal  justice system.  He said it  may be                                                               
important  to keep  the person  on probation  to ensure  that the                                                               
restitution is met.  In other circumstances, a person  may need a                                                               
longer period  of time  to meet the  conditions of  probation. He                                                               
pointed out  that these  are maximum terms,  but this  allows the                                                               
court the discretion to make those decisions.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KIEHL   recalled  sentencing  has  a   whole  series  of                                                               
aggravators. He asked whether those apply to probation.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON answered no.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:34:22 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON turned to Sections 38-40, which read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section  38      40:  Enhanced  sentences   for  making                                                                    
     methamphetamine  around children  or engaging  children                                                                    
     in  the sale  of  methamphetamine  are reenacted.  Also                                                                    
     increases the  presumptive sentencing ranges  for class                                                                    
     A, B, and C felonies.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Felony                                                                                                                     
                  Current Law           SB 32                                                                                 
     Level                                                                                                                      
     Class A      First Felony: 3-6     First Felony: 5-8                                                                       
                 (20 max)              (20 max)                                                                                 
                  Second Felony: 8-12   Second Felony: 10-14                                                                    
                 (20 max)              (20 max)                                                                                 
                  Third Felony: 13-20   Third Felony: 15-20                                                                     
                 (20 max)              (20 max)                                                                               
     Class B      First Felony: 0-2     First Felony: 1-3                                                                       
                 (10 max)              (10 max)                                                                                 
                  Second Felony: 2-5    Second Felony: 4-7                                                                      
                 (10 max)              (10 max)                                                                                 
                  Third Felony: 4-10    Third Felony: 6-10                                                                      
                 (10 max)              (10 max)                                                                               
     Class C      First Felony: 0-2     First Felony: 0-2                                                                       
                  (5 max)               (5 max)                                                                                 
                  Second Felony: 1-4    Second Felony: 2-4                                                                      
                 (5 max)               (5 max)                                                                                  
                  Third Felony: 2-5     Third Felony: 3-5                                                                       
                  (5 max)               (5 max)                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON  said  that  this  would  return  the  presumptive                                                               
sentencing to pre-Senate  Bill 91. He suggested  that Senate Bill                                                               
91  moved the  ranges down  one level.  He explained  presumptive                                                               
sentencing. When someone commits  a felony offense their sentence                                                               
is  dictated by  two factors,  one is  the classification  of the                                                               
offense,  such  as an  unclassified  class  A,  B, or  C  felony.                                                               
Secondly,  the person's  criminal  history  is considered,  which                                                               
gives a  range of sentencing. In  order to go above  or below the                                                               
range,  the  court  must  find  an  aggravator  or  a  mitigator,                                                               
depending on the circumstances of the case.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
He  said  that  Section  38  would  adjust  all  the  presumptive                                                               
sentence ranges for class A  felony back [to pre-Senate Bill 91].                                                               
He explained  that this includes  both the range itself  and what                                                               
is often considered special circumstances,  such as when a person                                                               
commits  a  class  A  felony  and possessed  a  firearm,  used  a                                                               
dangerous  instrument,  or  caused serious  physical  injury.  In                                                               
those  instances,  the person  would  face  a higher  presumptive                                                               
sentence range. He  directed attention to language on  page 25 of                                                               
SB   32,  which   returns  the   enhanced   penalty  for   making                                                               
methamphetamine  in the  presence of  children. This  returns the                                                               
presumptive sentence penalty to a range of seven to 11 years.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:36:33 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON  turned to  Section 39  of the  sectional analysis,                                                               
which  returned the  sentencing  ranges for  all  class B  felony                                                               
offenses  to pre-Senate  Bill 91,  along with  the return  of the                                                               
enhanced  sentencing provisions  for class  B felony  offense for                                                               
someone attempting to make methamphetamine around children.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:36:53 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON turned  to Section 40 and stated  this would return                                                               
the presumptive  ranges for class  C felony offenses.  He pointed                                                               
out that Senate  Bill 91 made the presumptive  sentence range for                                                               
a first-time  class C felony  offense a  presumptive probationary                                                               
term of 18  months. That was amended to 0-2  years in Senate Bill                                                               
54. He  directed attention to  Section 40 on  page 26, of  SB 32,                                                               
which  leaves that  change in  since  it was  pre-Senate Bill  91                                                               
language. Again,  that goes back  to the 2016 pre-Senate  Bill 91                                                               
law, he said.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:37:41 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  asked whether a 20-year  maximum sentence would                                                               
include an  aggravator above the 5-8,  10-14 , or 15-20  years of                                                               
sentencing  ranges. He  asked  if a  judge  would take  excessive                                                               
amounts of  drugs intended  for distribution  into account  as an                                                               
aggravator or if it needed to be specified.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  replied that a  specific aggravator exists  for "a                                                               
large amount" that allows the  court to go beyond the presumptive                                                               
sentence range.  He said that "a  large amount" is unique  to the                                                               
facts of  the case  and is  different in  Kotzebue than  "a large                                                               
amount"  in Anchorage.  That is  one reason  for a  reluctance to                                                               
specify an  amount in  drug laws  for very  serious drugs.  It is                                                               
important to  allow the  judge to  have discretion  to understand                                                               
the impact  of a specific drug  on a specific community  when the                                                               
crime occurred, he said.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:39:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for further  clarification why the maximum                                                               
is  20 years  for a  class A  felony instead  of using  a sliding                                                               
scale. He  further asked  for the  reason why  the penalty  for a                                                               
third felony  is a maximum of  20 years when the  maximum penalty                                                               
is the same for a first  felony offense. He suggested he expected                                                               
it to be on a sliding scale.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  answered that  it is  based on  the classification                                                               
system   that   is  established   in   Alaska   law,  with   four                                                               
classifications of felonies.  Those classification always dictate                                                               
a maximum  term, he  said. For example,  the maximum  penalty for                                                               
all class C  felonies is five years, for all  class B felonies is                                                               
10  years, for  all class  A felonies  is 20  years. Unclassified                                                               
felonies are  unclassified and most go  up to 99 years,  he said.                                                               
He  explained that  the classification  system  sets the  maximum                                                               
penalty, establishes ranges within  the maximum, and depending on                                                               
the situation, also establishes mandatory minimum sentences.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:40:11 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD  said it  seemed like Alaska  has so  many cases                                                               
that do not set mandatory minimums.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON recalled  that minimums  are scattered  throughout                                                               
the code. For  example, murder of a police  officer establishes a                                                               
mandatory minimum of 99 years.  He referred to the "three strikes                                                               
and you  are out" provision in  which a person who  commits three                                                               
class A or  unclassified offenses in a series,  faces a mandatory                                                               
minimum of  99 years.  He pointed out  the mandatory  minimum for                                                               
misdemeanor assault  of police officer  is either 30 or  60 days,                                                               
that  a first-time  DUI  has a  mandatory minimum  of  3 days;  a                                                               
second  DUI has  a mandatory  minimum  of 20  days. In  addition,                                                               
mandatory  minimums for  felony  DUIs also  exist. He  reiterated                                                               
that mandatory minimum sentences are found throughout the code.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD  offered her belief that  Alaska's criminal code                                                               
and laws  are not that harsh  compared to some other  states. She                                                               
remarked that even the pre-Senate Bill  91 laws in Alaska are not                                                               
that harsh.  She advocated for  the governor to  consider tougher                                                               
minimum penalties.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:42:52 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   HUGHES  also   expressed  concern.   She  advocated   for                                                               
discretion as a powerful tool.  The public has been outraged when                                                               
judges choose to  impose zero penalties. She  agreed with Senator                                                               
Reinbold, that  the state  has an  opportunity to  reconsider the                                                               
penalties.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:43:48 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HENDERSON turned  to Section  41 of  the sectional  analysis                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
      Section 41: Prohibits the suspension or reduction of                                                                      
     the period of mandatory probation outlined in statute                                                                      
     for sex offenders.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON  said  that  Section 41  would  clarify  that  the                                                               
probation or  suspended portion  of a sentence  in a  sex offense                                                               
cannot be reduced.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON reviewed  Section 42 of the  sectional analysis, as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section  42:  Returns  sentencing  range  for  class  A                                                                    
     misdemeanors to 0-1 year.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON reviewed  Section 43 of the  sectional analysis, as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section  43:  Returns  sentencing  range  for  class  B                                                                    
     misdemeanors to 0-90 days.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
He said Senate Bill 91 limited it to 10 days.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:44:28 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON reviewed Sections  44-45 of the sectional analysis,                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section  44: Reenacts  prohibition on  jail time  for a                                                                    
     first  marijuana  offense  if  the  person  is  not  on                                                                    
     probation or parole at the time of the offense.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Section  45: Repeals  requirement that  a person  serve                                                                    
     their   sentence  for   a  first   DUI  on   electronic                                                                    
     monitoring or  house arrest. Returns discretion  to the                                                                    
     commissioner  of corrections  to  place  the person  on                                                                    
     electronic monitoring  at a private  residence or  at a                                                                    
     community residential center.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:44:43 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  said that  one thing that  strikes him  about this                                                               
bill is  that it  is "kind  of a  double tap."  Not only  does it                                                               
raise  each  crime to  a  higher  order  of  crime, but  it  also                                                               
proposes to increase the sentences  for each level of offense. He                                                               
asked what  deters criminals. He  recalled that a few  years ago,                                                               
the legislature raised the penalties  for some of the most severe                                                               
violent crimes.  He asked whether  the crimes have gone  down. He                                                               
further asked what deterrents work best.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON agreed that in  some instances the criminal offense                                                               
is elevated  and the  criminal penalty. He  pointed out  that the                                                               
bill increases the  ceiling, and not necessarily  the sentence if                                                               
it is  not necessary. The judge  makes the decision based  on the                                                               
circumstances  of the  case and  sets  the appropriate  sentence.                                                               
This is  important because it  reaffirms that the court  needs to                                                               
apply all  of the  sentencing factors,  not just  deterrence, not                                                               
just rehabilitation, not just community  condemnation, but all of                                                               
the factors.  The judge must  weigh these  factors appropriately,                                                               
and in some instance, rehabilitation  might be the most important                                                               
sentencing  factor. In  other cases,  it  might not  be the  most                                                               
important   factor,   which   might   be   isolation,   community                                                               
condemnation, or restoration of  victim's rights. The judge needs                                                               
to have the options to impose the sentence, when appropriate.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:47:29 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the  criminal justice system does not                                                               
have any deterrent to stop crime.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said he thought  the question is whether deterrence                                                               
works. He said  he is not a social scientist  so he cannot answer                                                               
it.  He  said that  the  criminal  justice system  must  consider                                                               
deterrence for the  specific offender and for the  community as a                                                               
whole. He  referred to the  DUI laws and general  deterrence that                                                               
imposing a mandatory penalty has on  the public. He said that how                                                               
the  person must  serve that  sentence will  be discussed  in the                                                               
next section.  However, the  general public  knows if  you commit                                                               
this offense, a DUI, this is going to happen.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:49:00 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  asked for certainty.  "How do  we know that  has a                                                               
deterrent effect?" he asked.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  offered his  belief that the  number of  DUIs have                                                               
dropped considerably over 30 years.  He acknowledged that this is                                                               
due  to a  number of  reasons; however,  one reason  is mandatory                                                               
incarceration.  He  suggested  that lowering  the  blood  alcohol                                                               
concentration (BAC)  and instituting collateral  consequences are                                                               
other reasons.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:49:54 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES suggested  that cab  drivers could  verify if  they                                                               
have more  pickups on  Friday and Saturday  nights. She  said she                                                               
thinks  that they  do,  and  that people  think  twice. Based  on                                                               
conversations she  has had with law  enforcement in Southcentral,                                                               
Alaska has had  an influx of criminals from the  Lower 48 because                                                               
of  the  softening  of  Alaska's  laws, she  said.  She  said  by                                                               
toughening  them  up,  Alaska  should slow  down  and  stop  that                                                               
importation and focus on Alaskans.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:50:40 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON read Sections 45-46,  of the sectional analysis for                                                               
SB 32, house arrest, as follows:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section  45: Repeals  requirement that  a person  serve                                                                    
     their   sentence  for   a  first   DUI  on   electronic                                                                    
     monitoring or  house arrest. Returns discretion  to the                                                                    
     commissioner  of corrections  to  place  the person  on                                                                    
     electronic monitoring  at a private  residence or  at a                                                                    
     community residential center.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Section 46: The same changes  in section 45 are made in                                                                    
     section 46  to the statute governing  refusal to submit                                                                    
     to a chemical test.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:51:08 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL noticed  that the DUI statutes  have typically used                                                               
the same approach for a person  who refused to "blow" by treating                                                               
it as  though the  person had  a high reading.  He asked  for the                                                               
reason to apply  a different standard for refusal to  submit to a                                                               
chemical test.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said he might  be confused about the  question. He                                                               
said  that Sections  45  and 46  allows for  the  same amount  of                                                               
discretion.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KIEHL  asked whether the  person could serve  the penalty                                                               
for  refusal  to   submit  to  a  chemical   test  on  electronic                                                               
monitoring.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  agreed; however, it  would need to be  approved by                                                               
the Department of Corrections.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KIEHL said he must have misread it.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:51:59 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HENDERSON reviewed  Section  47 of  the sectional  analysis,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section 47:  Conforming amendment due to  the enactment                                                                    
     of  the   class  A  felony   level  offense   for  drug                                                                    
     distribution. Adds  that conduct  to the  definition of                                                                    
     "illegal activity involving  a controlled substance" in                                                                    
     the landlord tenant statutes.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  explained this  is a  conforming amendment  to the                                                               
landlord tenant statutes with changes to the drug statutes.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:52:21 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HENDERSON reviewed  Section  48 of  the sectional  analysis,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section  48:  Conforming  amendment.  Adds  all  felony                                                                    
     level  drug   distribution  to   the  list   of  crimes                                                                    
     involving a  minor which the  Department of  Health and                                                                    
        Social Services will disclose information to the                                                                        
     public.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  explained this  is a  conforming amendment  to the                                                               
list of  crimes covered  by the Department  of Health  and Social                                                               
Services (DHSS), Division of Juvenile Justice.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:52:25 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HENDERSON reviewed  Section  49 of  the sectional  analysis,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section  49:  Requires  the   Alaska  Court  System  to                                                                    
     transmit information  regarding involuntary commitments                                                                    
     that  have  occurred  since  October  1,  1981  to  the                                                                    
     Department of Public Safety.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said this change is  not related to Senate Bill 91.                                                               
This  change  would  ensure  that the  Alaska  Court  System  can                                                               
transmit information  related to  involuntary commitments  to the                                                               
Department of Public Safety. Prior  to 2014, the department would                                                               
have the information  available to upload into  the national data                                                               
base.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:52:52 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HENDERSON reviewed  Section  50 of  the sectional  analysis,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section 50: Allows a person's rap sheet to be used at                                                                      
     grand jury to prove the existence of prior convictions                                                                     
     when prior convictions are an element of the offense.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said this change is  not related to Senate Bill 91.                                                               
This is a rule of efficiency  for the prosecution. It would amend                                                               
Criminal  Rule 6(r)  which governs  the admissibility  of certain                                                               
evidence  at   grand  jury.  This   amendment  would   allow  the                                                               
prosecution   to   introduce    a   person's   criminal   history                                                               
electronically,  as opposed  to using  certified judgments,  when                                                               
appropriate  and  when  necessary   to  prove  the  existence  of                                                               
predicate  offenses. He  suggested it  would apply  to recidivist                                                               
theft, assault, and  felon in possession types  of offenses. This                                                               
would allow  the criminal  justice system to  hold the  person on                                                               
the felony charge  in instances in which a lag  time in receiving                                                               
the certified  judgment occurs. Otherwise, the  prosecutors would                                                               
need to dismiss  the felony charge or reduce it  to a misdemeanor                                                               
charge.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:53:54 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES  pointed  out  that   delays  can  occur  when  the                                                               
information is coming from other  state agencies. She said it can                                                               
result  in  significant  delays,  so  this  is  a  very  sensible                                                               
approach.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:54:14 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON explained  that Section 51 is  the repealer section                                                               
and Section 52 is the applicability section.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:54:27 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  asked whether  there is a  change in  the domestic                                                               
violence (DV) look back in Section 51.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON recalled  that this  repeals the  "look back"  for                                                               
prior   convictions  for   misdemeanors,  in   part,  to   return                                                               
discretion  to the  court on  a misdemeanor  for up  to 365  days                                                               
since  the  cap  has  been  eliminated. Now  the  court  has  the                                                               
authority to sentence appropriately within that entire range.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  stated that under  current law, Senate Bill  91, a                                                               
cap exists  on class  A misdemeanors  of 30  days. The  court can                                                               
impose  a  sentence up  to  365  days  if  the person  has  prior                                                               
convictions or  for certain offenses.  A prior section  unique to                                                               
the   misdemeanor  code   repealed   the   definition  of   prior                                                               
convictions because the court now  has the discretion to impose a                                                               
sentence up  to a year.  The court  would consider all  the facts                                                               
and circumstances in the case, he said.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:56:13 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  asked  for  further  clarification  on  statutory                                                               
aggravators in Section 51.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON replied  that the "Juneby rule" does  not allow the                                                               
offense to  be counted double. It  does not allow the  element of                                                               
the offense to be double counted  and also make it an aggravating                                                               
factor to exceed  the presumptive range. He said it  has been the                                                               
law since  the Court of  Appeals issued the decision.  In further                                                               
response, he explained  that the "Juneby rule"  is eliminated for                                                               
misdemeanors  since the  sentencing cap  and aggravating  factors                                                               
have been removed. It is not  necessary to have a double counting                                                               
provision  since the  court would  now have  an overall  range to                                                               
sentence appropriately and the  misdemeanor aggravators have been                                                               
repealed.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:57:37 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HENDERSON related  Section 52  is the  applicability section                                                               
and Section  53 is the  retroactivity section that  makes section                                                               
49,  the data  sharing  between  the DPS  and  the court  system,                                                               
retroactive. He  said that Section  54 is the  conditional effect                                                               
section for the  court rule change for the  criminal 6(r) change.                                                               
Section 55  creates an immediate  effective date for  Sections 49                                                               
and 55. Section 56 would establish  July 1, 2019 as the effective                                                               
date for all other sections.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[SB 32 was held in committee.]                                                                                                  

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SJUD Agenda 2.8.19.pdf SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB32 - Version A.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 Transmittal Letter.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Sectional.pdf SFIN 4/24/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SB 32
SB32-DOA-PD-FN.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
SB32-DOA-OPA-FN.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
SB32-DOC-PopMgmt-IDO-FN.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
SB32-DPS-CJISP-FN.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
SB32-HSS-PS-FN.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
SB32-Law-CrimDiv-FN.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM
SB 32