Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)

04/19/2019 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

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled: TELECONFERENCED
+= SJR 3 CONST. AM: MEMBERSHIP OF JUDICIAL COUNCIL TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
+= SJR 4 CONST. AM: STATE TAX; INTIATIVE TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= SB 33 ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
                                                                                                                                
2:23:24 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
SENATE  BILL  NO.  33,  "An Act  relating  to  pretrial  release;                                                               
relating  to sentencing;  relating  to  treatment program  credit                                                               
toward  service  of  a  sentence  of  imprisonment;  relating  to                                                               
electronic  monitoring; amending  Rules  38.2  and 45(d),  Alaska                                                               
Rules  of  Criminal Procedure;  and  providing  for an  effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
[Before the committee was CSSB 33(STA), Version M.]                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:23:37 PM                                                                                                                    
At-ease.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:26:04 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:26:31 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE moved  to adopt  the committee  substitute (CS)                                                               
for SB 33,  work order 31-GS1030\U, Radford,  4/17/19, Version U,                                                               
as the working document.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:26:48 PM                                                                                                                    
BUDDY  WHITT,   Staff,  Senator  Shelley  Hughes,   Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, Juneau, referred to  a document in members' packets,                                                               
titled "Explanation  of Changes in Committee  Substitute for CSSB                                                               
33, Version M to U."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:26:52 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. WHITT turned to the first change.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Title  Changes: The  following has  been  added to  the                                                                    
     title  in  order  to  conform   to  changes  and  added                                                                    
     provisions                                                                                                                 
        • relating to the duties of a prosecuting attorney                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:27:09 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 1.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section 1: Adds the intent  of the legislature that the                                                                    
     court may consider the  self-improvement efforts of the                                                                    
     defendant while  in a pre-trial status  when imposing a                                                                    
     sentence  of imprisonment.  (Page  1,  Line 12  through                                                                    
     Page 2, Line 3)                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Adds  intent language  that  Department of  Corrections                                                                    
     develop and report  back to the legislature,  a plan to                                                                    
     track and measure the  effectiveness of evidenced based                                                                    
     programs on offenders. (Page 2, Lines 4-7)                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
He  said  the intent  language  was  requested by  Department  of                                                               
Corrections related  to developing  a plan  to track  and measure                                                               
the effectiveness  of evidenced-based  programs on  offenders and                                                               
report its progress to the  House and Senate Judiciary Committees                                                               
during  the Second  Regular Session  of  the Thirty-First  Alaska                                                               
State Legislature.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:28:10 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 7.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section  7: Amends  AS  12.30.011(e)  by directing  the                                                                    
     department of  corrections to keep in  detention anyone                                                                    
      that is legally under the influence (may to shall).                                                                       
     (Page 7, Line 19)                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITT said that Section  7 repeals and reenacts AS 12.30.011,                                                               
related  to  pre-trial  releases,  which would  direct  that  the                                                               
department "shall" detain a person  until the person is no longer                                                               
intoxicate   before  being   released  on   bail.  The   language                                                               
previously read "may" detain, he said.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES directed attention to page  7, line 19 and asked for                                                               
clarification on why "may" does not appear.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITT explained  that  the entire  section  is repealed  and                                                               
reenacted so the prior language is not visible.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:30:00 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 9.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section  9: Amends  AS  12.30.021(c)(2)  that a  third-                                                                    
     party custodian may not have  been convicted of a crime                                                                    
     under AS  11.41 and  may not have  been unconditionally                                                                    
     discharged in  the previous five years.  (Page 8, Lines                                                                    
     8  10)                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITT explained that this change  would make it a little more                                                               
difficult for  a convicted felon  to be a  third-party custodian.                                                               
This  language was  suggested by  several  committee members.  It                                                               
places restrictions on third-party  custodians. They may not have                                                               
been  convicted of  a  crime  under AS  11.41,  crimes against  a                                                               
person, been unconditionally discharged  within the previous five                                                               
years for  a felony, have committed  a crime under AS  41, crimes                                                               
against  a  person,   or  similar  crimes  in   this  or  another                                                               
jurisdiction. The  Chair met with  the Department  of Corrections                                                               
(DOC),  the  Department  of  Law  (DOL),  and  Legislative  Legal                                                               
Services to  address concerns that these  restrictions might make                                                               
it  difficult for  offenders  to  obtain third-party  custodians.                                                               
However, if offenders  need these services, the  department has a                                                               
pretrial division  to provide supervision.  The goal is  to avoid                                                               
"a bad actor" from being released, he said.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES said  the purpose of this is  to provide custodians,                                                               
who oversee  offenders, with a  better role model. She  asked for                                                               
further  clarification on  the difference  in  the language  from                                                               
"convicted"  and "unconditionally  discharged". She  said someone                                                               
who has been  convicted and has served two years  and nine months                                                               
could be released and would qualify as a third-party custodian.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:32:44 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. WHITT  explained that "unconditionally discharged,"  which is                                                               
informally  considered  "off  paper"   means  offenders  who  are                                                               
completely  off parole  and probation  and  have completed  their                                                               
sentences.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES referred  to her previous scenario,  which means the                                                               
person  would only  have been  outside Department  of Corrections                                                               
(DOC) custody  for three  months, which is  not adequate  time to                                                               
prove the person  could stay clean. This  provision adds language                                                               
that the  individual must have  followed the law for  a five-year                                                               
period.  This individual  would make  a  better role  model as  a                                                               
custodian, she said.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:33:34 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE agreed  with the change. He said he  is aware of                                                               
some  instances  where  people use  their  roles  as  third-party                                                               
custodians to supervise offenders  for less honorable reasons. He                                                               
characterized  Section 9  as a  huge  improvement. Previously,  a                                                               
person  who had  completed three  years in  custody and  was just                                                               
released  would  be  eligible  to  be  a  third-party  custodian.                                                               
Although this is a much better change,  he said he is still not a                                                               
fan of third-party custodian program,  so he hopes the court will                                                               
be strict in its use.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES said  that the goal of the committee  is justice for                                                               
victims  for  the  sake  of  public safety  and  to  ensure  that                                                               
offenders  have every  opportunity  to turn  their lives  around.                                                               
This change fits in with that goal, she said.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:35:12 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL said parts of the  changes in Section 9 make sense.                                                               
He referred  to the scenario in  which a person is  released from                                                               
custody after three  years. The person would  almost certainly be                                                               
on  probation  and a  probationer  would  not be  eligible  under                                                               
paragraph (4) of  this subsection. He characterized  the shift by                                                               
extending  the length  of  time from  three to  five  years as  a                                                               
significant change  in terms of  when the clock starts.  He asked                                                               
for an  estimate of the  number of  people this would  affect who                                                               
could not be third-party custodians.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITT  answered that the  number of  people who could  not be                                                               
third-party custodians  was not a  concern, but rather  to ensure                                                               
that the third-party custodians were  not the type of people that                                                               
should not serve  in that role. He deferred to  the Department of                                                               
Corrections for further comments.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:37:24 PM                                                                                                                    
JENNIFER WINKELMAN,  Director, Division of Probation  and Parole,                                                               
Department of Corrections, Juneau,  stated that the department is                                                               
satisfied  with Mr.  Whitt's response  and  that it  would be  an                                                               
unconditional discharge from probation after they were done.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  asked whether everyone released  from prison is                                                               
on probation.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WINKELMAN answered  no.  She  said it  would  depend on  the                                                               
judgment or if they were released on mandatory parole.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:38:10 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL said that the  shift to unconditional discharge may                                                               
make  sense  but  starting  the clock  later  and  including  all                                                               
felonies even  if the crimes are  not crimes against a  person is                                                               
another big shift.  He expressed concern on  the restrictions for                                                               
third-party  custodians since  they provide  supervision but  are                                                               
not specifically selected to be  role models. He suggested it may                                                               
limit  access  to  those  offenders who  could  be  released  and                                                               
adequately supervised for a lack of "boy scouts."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES  said that "role model"  may not be the  best way to                                                               
describe  third-party  custodians.  These  are  people  who  have                                                               
proven  they  can  be  responsible  outside  the  constraints  of                                                               
Department  of  Corrections  (DOC) oversight.  They  have  proven                                                               
themselves, she  said. She suggested  that being clean  and sober                                                               
for five years  is an important way to show  readiness to provide                                                               
supervision.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE said he appreciated the change.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:40:09 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 10.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section  10:  Amends  AS  12.55.025  by  adding  a  new                                                                    
     section  directing the  court to  verbally describe  on                                                                    
     the record  the sentence imposed as  required in (a)(3)                                                                    
     of this section. (Page 8, Lines 21  26)                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITT  explained that this  is referred  to as the  "Truth in                                                               
Sentencing Act."  The court would  need to verbally  describe the                                                               
sentence imposed,  the minimum amount  of time that  the offender                                                               
would serve based on mandatory parole.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:41:47 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES referred to AS 12.55.025.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Sec. 12.55.025.   Sentencing procedures.                                                                                   
     (a)  When  imposing  a sentence  for  conviction  of  a                                                                    
     felony offense or a  sentence of imprisonment exceeding                                                                    
     90 days or  upon a conviction of a violation  of AS 04,                                                                    
     a  regulation  adopted under  AS  04,  or an  ordinance                                                                    
     adopted  in conformity  with  AS  04.21.010, the  court                                                                    
     shall prepare,  as a part  of the record,  a sentencing                                                                    
     report that includes the following:                                                                                        
          (1) a  verbatim record  of the  sentencing hearing                                                                    
     and any other in-court sentencing procedures;                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
          (2)  findings on  material issues  of fact  and on                                                                    
     factual  questions  required  to  be  determined  as  a                                                                    
     prerequisite to the selection of the sentence imposed;                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          (3)  a  clear  statement   of  the  terms  of  the                                                                    
     sentence  imposed;   if  a  term  of   imprisonment  is                                                                    
     imposed, the statement must include                                                                                        
               (A)   the   approximate  minimum   term   the                                                                    
     defendant is  expected to  serve before  being released                                                                    
     or  placed  on mandatory  parole  if  the defendant  is                                                                    
     eligible  for   and  does  not  forfeit   good  conduct                                                                    
     deductions under AS 33.20.010; and                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
               (B)  if applicable,  the approximate  minimum                                                                    
     term of  imprisonment the  defendant must  serve before                                                                    
     becoming eligible for release on discretionary parole;                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES focused on two provisions, and read:                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     ? the court  shall prepare, as a part of  the record, a                                                                    
     sentencing report that includes the following ?                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     (3)  a clear  statement of  the terms  of the  sentence                                                                    
     imposed;  if a  term  of imprisonment  is imposed,  the                                                                    
     statement must include                                                                                                     
               (A)   the   approximate  minimum   term   the                                                                    
     defendant is  expected to  serve before  being released                                                                    
     or  placed  on mandatory  parole  if  the defendant  is                                                                    
     eligible  for   and  does  not  forfeit   good  conduct                                                                    
     deductions under AS 33.20.010; and                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
               (B)  if applicable,  the approximate  minimum                                                                    
     term of  imprisonment the  defendant must  serve before                                                                    
     becoming eligible for release on discretionary parole;                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
She  said  that  the  court already  prepares  these  approximate                                                               
sentencing  reports.  They  are   furnished  in  writing  to  the                                                               
defendant, the  Department of  Law (DOL),  and the  Department of                                                               
Corrections  (DOC). When  applicable they  are also  sent to  the                                                               
Parole Board and  the Alcoholic Beverage Control  Board. She said                                                               
that  the  approximate minimum  sentences  are  not part  of  the                                                               
sentence  imposed nor  do  they  provide a  basis  for review  or                                                               
appeal  of the  sentence imposed  or provide  a defendant  with a                                                               
right  to  any  specific  term  of  imprisonment  or  supervisory                                                               
release on  mandatory parole.  She said the  judge would  use the                                                               
language  "may" and  "approximate,"  so it  does  not provide  an                                                               
avenue for a case and allow defendants to be back in court.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:44:15 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  said Ms.  Meade provided  a copy  of the  form that                                                               
allows the  court to fill  in and check off  specific provisions.                                                               
She  pointed out  that  the form  needs to  be  updated since  it                                                               
currently only lists discretionary parole.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
She remarked that  sometimes the public and  victims are outraged                                                               
when they realize  that convicted offenders do not  have to serve                                                               
their entire sentence.  An offender may be sentenced  to serve 20                                                               
years,  with  five  years  suspended,  but  if  the  offender  is                                                               
eligible  for mandatory  parole, it  reduces the  sentence to  10                                                               
years.  If  the  offender  is  also  eligible  for  discretionary                                                               
parole, the offender would only  serve five years. She emphasized                                                               
that the report  needs to reflect mandatory parole  to inform the                                                               
public. She said that the media  is often in the courtroom during                                                               
high-profile  cases, so  it will  be helpful  to give  the report                                                               
orally, which will improve the "Truth in Sentencing Act."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:46:45 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  asked whether the  forms are currently  filled out                                                               
and  sent to  the parties.  He  further asked  whether the  judge                                                               
would have  time during the  hearing to accurately  calculate and                                                               
assess the time since the judge  would be listening to parties at                                                               
the time of sentencing.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES  said that  the oral  remarks are  for informational                                                               
purposes  and  the  judge  would   use  the  language  "may"  and                                                               
"approximate." She said it can  be complicated in some instances.                                                               
However,  the language  is  written to  avoid  "bogging down  the                                                               
courts" if the calculations are not correct.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KIEHL emphasized the need  to avoid having a judge having                                                               
a vague sentence in mind and  at the time of sentencing the judge                                                               
determines  a  different  sentence.   However,  if  the  math  is                                                               
complicated, the judge might stick with the original sentence.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES offered  her belief that the intent  of AS 12.55.025                                                               
is  to  inform people  of  the  actual incarceration  time.  This                                                               
information is important  for the victim and the  public to know,                                                               
she said.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:49:04 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 15.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section  15:  Amends  AS  12.61.015  by  adding  a  new                                                                    
     subsection  (d)  that  adds a  requirement  for  victim                                                                    
     notification  by the  prosecutor  when  an offender  in                                                                    
     discharged   from   a   treatment  program   for   non-                                                                    
     compliance.  The victim  contact is  for sexual  crimes                                                                    
     and  crimes  involving  domestic  violence.  (Page  10,                                                                    
     Lines 1  4)                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITT explained  that Section 15 relates  to the notification                                                               
of when  an offender is  discharged from a treatment  program for                                                               
noncompliance while in  pretrial. She said a  number of committee                                                               
members  suggested  this  change. This  specifically  relates  to                                                               
crimes  involving domestic  violence and  sex crimes.  He pointed                                                               
out an amendment  will be offered to clarify this  pertains to an                                                               
offender in pretrial  status. It currently would  apply to anyone                                                               
on probation, parole or pretrial.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:50:46 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that she supports this change.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:51:17 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES  removed  her objection.  There  being  no  further                                                               
objection,  the proposed  committee  substitute (CS)  for SB  33,                                                               
Version U was before the committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:51:33 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  moved  to  adopt  Amendment  1,  work  order  31-                                                               
GS1030\U.1, Radford, 4/18/19.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 1                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                      BY SENATOR KIEH                                                                 
     TO:  CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                       
     Page 2, line 10:                                                                                                           
          Delete "48 [24]"                                                                                                  
          Insert "24"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 10, line 11:                                                                                                          
          Delete "48 [24]"                                                                                                  
          Insert "24"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:52:03 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  made a motion  to adopt Conceptual Amendment  1 to                                                               
Amendment 1  on page 2  of Version U.  He stated that  this would                                                               
restore  the 24-hour  deadline for  a person  to appear  before a                                                               
judge or magistrate.  He referred to page 2, line  10, and stated                                                               
that  Conceptual   Amendment  1  would  add   "absent  compelling                                                               
circumstances"  after  "arrest". On  page  2,  lines 16-18  would                                                               
reinstate  the  sentence,  "The   hearing  before  the  judge  or                                                               
magistrate may not  take place more than 48  hours after arrest."                                                               
He said that  Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment  1 is necessary                                                               
because  otherwise the  amendment  is more  restrictive than  the                                                               
current language. He characterized it as bad policy.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   MICCICHE    objected.   He   said    that   extenuating                                                               
circumstances  already exist.  He said  he does  not support  the                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KIEHL  pointed  out that  the  language  for  compelling                                                               
circumstances is  being removed in Version  U and it needs  to be                                                               
reinstated  to have  the 24-hour  timeframe be  workable. The  48                                                               
hours in the underlying bill creates a pretty hard cap.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  said that the  Department of Law made  it clear                                                               
that currently it  must notify the court when it  will exceed the                                                               
24-hour period.  The department  tries to  bring people  before a                                                               
judge  prior  to the  24-hour  period  but  sometimes it  is  not                                                               
possible. Extending  it to 48  hours would provide  adequate time                                                               
for other things  to happen that might currently  be rushed under                                                               
the 24-hour requirement.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES related  her understanding that 95  percent of cases                                                               
are  currently  heard  within  24 hours.  She  pointed  out  that                                                               
extending  the  time  to  48   hours  would  address  some  staff                                                               
retention issues since it would  avoid people working on weekends                                                               
and holidays.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:55:19 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  said the Conceptual  Amendment 1 to Amendment  1 is                                                               
before the committee. She said that she will also oppose it.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:55:41 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  said that Conceptual  Amendment 1 is  necessary to                                                               
have a  serious discussion on  Amendment 1.  He said that  if the                                                               
committee is  not interested in  making Amendment 1  a functional                                                               
amendment,   he  will   withdraw   both.  Therefore,   Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 and Amendment 1 were withdrawn.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:56:04 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 2, work order 31-                                                                        
GS1030\U.2, Radford, 4/18/19.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 2                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                     BY SENATOR KIEHL                                                                 
     TO:  CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 4 - 12:                                                                                                      
          Delete "[UPON REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS, THE                                                                           
     JUDICIAL  OFFICER   SHALL  REVISE  ANY   CONDITIONS  OF                                                                    
     RELEASE THAT  HAVE PREVENTED  THE DEFENDANT  FROM BEING                                                                    
     RELEASED  UNLESS  THE  JUDICIAL OFFICER  FINDS  ON  THE                                                                    
     RECORD  THAT THERE  IS  CLEAR  AND CONVINCING  EVIDENCE                                                                    
     THAT   LESS  RESTRICTIVE   RELEASE  CONDITIONS   CANNOT                                                                    
     REASONABLY ENSURE THE                                                                                                      
               (1)  APPEARANCE OF THE PERSON IN COURT; AND                                                                      
               (2)  SAFETY OF THE VICTIM, OTHER PERSONS,                                                                        
     AND THE COMMUNITY.]"                                                                                                       
          Insert "Upon review of the conditions, the                                                                            
     judicial  officer   shall  revise  any   conditions  of                                                                    
     release that  have prevented  the defendant  from being                                                                    
     released  unless  the  judicial officer  finds  on  the                                                                    
     record by a  preponderance of the [THAT  THERE IS CLEAR                                                                
     AND CONVINCING] evidence  that less restrictive release                                                                    
     conditions cannot reasonably ensure the                                                                                    
               (1) appearance of the person in court; and                                                                       
               (2) safety of the victim, other persons, and the                                                                 
     community."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:56:30 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL said that Amendment 2 would provide an opportunity                                                                
to request a judicial review of the conditions of release when                                                                  
someone  is unable  to meet  them.  The Department  of Law  (DOL)                                                               
indicated that the clear and  convincing standard is challenging.                                                               
He  said  that  rather  than   deleting  the  standard  entirely,                                                               
Amendment 2 would  change it to a preponderance  of the evidence.                                                               
The legislature  would continue to  provide some guidance  to the                                                               
court,  which  provide  the  least  restrictive  conditions  that                                                               
reasonably ensure the  1) appearance of the person  in court; and                                                               
(2) safety of the victim and other persons in the community.                                                                    
By leaving  a standard in place  it opens up the  opportunity for                                                               
the  prosecution to  make the  case, but  it would  still provide                                                               
some guidance  to the  court. This  effectively would  handle the                                                               
public safety concern and restore  some discretion the department                                                               
seeks without saying, in essence, "whatever goes."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:58:32 PM                                                                                                                    
JOHN  SKIDMORE,  Director,  Criminal  Division,  Central  Office,                                                               
Department of  Law, Anchorage,  said Amendment  2 would  create a                                                               
problem  because  when  the  court   sets  bail  and  establishes                                                               
conditions  for  bail, it  states  the  judicial officer  "shall"                                                               
revise the conditions  unless the court finds  by a preponderance                                                               
of the evidence  that it cannot reasonably do so.  He agreed that                                                               
setting the  preponderance of the  evidence standard  is correct.                                                               
However,  the  judge  has  already  made  a  determination  after                                                               
considering all  of the factors.  This would  essentially suggest                                                               
that judges  must second guess their  original determinations. He                                                               
would  argue  that  is  inappropriate,  that  a  subsequent  bail                                                               
hearing  should  occur, but  only  if  new information  comes  to                                                               
light.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:00:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  pointed out  the underlying  bill does  not remove                                                               
the  ability  to  have conditions  reviewed,  so  reconsideration                                                               
remains in the  underlying bill. He offered his  belief that this                                                               
would apply  in threshold cases.  He explained that it  should be                                                               
clear  to  the  judge  when   the  case  is  reviewed  under  the                                                               
preponderance of the  evidence as to whether  the offender should                                                               
be  on  the   street.  Amendment  2  would  leave   in  place  an                                                               
opportunity for  the judge to  take another  look as long  as the                                                               
person does not pose a threat to the public.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:02:05 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SKIDMORE  said  the  language in  Amendment  2  that  states                                                               
"judicial officer shall revise any  conditions of release unless"                                                               
is superfluous  language that  tends to  create confusion  to the                                                               
existing standards. It would shift  the presumption from "has new                                                               
information  arisen that  should change  the court's  opinion" to                                                               
"the fact  that the person has  not been released means  that the                                                               
court  should   release  them."  That  is   not  the  appropriate                                                               
standard, he  said. The appropriate  standard is that  the person                                                               
is entitled to another bail  hearing when new information arises,                                                               
although  it  does not  mean  that  the  judge must  release  the                                                               
person. The judge would stand by  the original ruling made at the                                                               
bail hearing, which set out appropriate conditions.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:04:03 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR HUGHES maintained her objection.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:04:09 PM                                                                                                                    
A  roll call  vote was  taken. Senator  Kiehl voted  in favor  of                                                               
Amendment 2  and Senators Micciche  and Hughes voted  against it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a 1:2 vote.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES  acknowledged that Senator  Reinbold could  not hear                                                               
the vote.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:04:40 PM                                                                                                                    
At-ease.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:04:48 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened  the meeting. She asked  the secretary to                                                               
void the roll call vote. The roll call vote was voided.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:05:03 PM                                                                                                                    
A  roll call  vote was  taken. Senator  Kiehl voted  in favor  of                                                               
Amendment 2 and Senators  Reinbold (via teleconference), Micciche                                                               
and Hughes voted  against it. Therefore, Amendment 2  failed by a                                                               
1:3 vote.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:05:49 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  moved  to  adopt  Amendment  3,  work  order  31-                                                               
GS1030\U.3, Radford, 4/18/19.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 3                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                     BY SENATOR KIEHL                                                                 
     TO:  CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 24 - 25:                                                                                                     
          Delete "does not include [INCLUDES] the person's                                                                  
     inability to post the required bail;"                                                                                      
          Insert "includes the person's inability to post                                                                       
       the required bail if the person can show that the                                                                    
      person made a good faith effort to post the required                                                                  
     bail;"                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 30 - 31:                                                                                                     
          Delete "[; HOWEVER, A PERSON MAY RECEIVE ONLY ONE                                                                     
     BAIL REVIEW HEARING SOLELY FOR INABILITY TO PAY]"                                                                          
          Insert "however, a person may receive only one                                                                        
     bail review hearing solely for inability to pay"                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:05:55 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  reviewed  Amendment  3,  such  that  it  restores                                                               
language  removed to  clarify that  the person  must make  a good                                                               
faith  effort  to post  the  required  bail.  When the  bill  was                                                               
presented, concern  was expressed that  people might clog  up the                                                               
system. He envisioned this provision  would only apply to someone                                                               
who has made  a good faith effort to post  bail. The person would                                                               
be limited  to one bail  review hearing.  The judge would  not be                                                               
required  to  amend  the  bail,   but  to  allow  the  person  an                                                               
opportunity for a bail review hearing.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:08:28 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE said  that he appreciated the attempts  to limit the                                                               
application. He referred  to page 6 of Version  U, which outlines                                                               
four factors that require a  judge to consider a person's ability                                                               
to pay  when bail  is initially  set. Once the  bail is  set, the                                                               
bail  should not  be  changed  based on  the  person's assets  or                                                               
employment  history. Therefore,  the Department  of Law  does not                                                               
support Amendment 3.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES maintained her objection.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:09:58 PM                                                                                                                    
A  roll call  vote was  taken. Senator  Kiehl voted  in favor  of                                                               
Amendment 3 and Senators  Micciche, Reinbold (via teleconference)                                                               
and Hughes  and voted against  it. Therefore, Amendment  3 failed                                                               
by a 1:3 vote.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:10:31 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  moved  to  adopt  Amendment  4,  work  order  31-                                                               
GS1030\U.4, Radford, 4/18/19.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 4                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                     BY SENATOR KIEHL                                                                 
     TO:  CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, following line 22:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new subsection to read:                                                                                           
          "(f)  In determining the conditions of release                                                                        
         under this chapter, the court may consider the                                                                         
        pretrial risk assessment provided by a probation                                                                        
     officer acting as a pretrial services officer."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 13, line 3, following "needs":                                                                                        
          Insert ";                                                                                                             
               (4)  conduct a pretrial risk assessment                                                                          
     using an  instrument approved  by the  commissioner for                                                                    
     all defendants  detained in  custody in  a correctional                                                                    
     facility  following arrest  and for  any defendant  for                                                                    
     whom the  prosecution requests to have  a pretrial risk                                                                    
     assessment at the next hearing or arraignment"                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 13, lines 15 - 16:                                                                                                    
          Delete "[; PRETRIAL DEFENDANT RISK LEVEL AND                                                                          
     CHARGE;"                                                                                                                   
          Insert "; pretrial defendant risk level and                                                                           
     charge [;"                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:10:38 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  explained  that Amendment  4  would  restore  the                                                               
pretrial  risk  assessment  as  an  optional  tool.  He  recalled                                                               
earlier  testimony from  the Alaska  Judicial  Council about  the                                                               
usefulness of  the pretrial assessment  tool in reducing  some of                                                               
the concerning  differentials in the criminal  justice system. He                                                               
said that some of the  initial results of the pretrial assessment                                                               
tools  are   promising.  He  acknowledged  that   some  perceived                                                               
deficits exist,  but by making  this an optional factor,  a judge                                                               
can consider providing one additional objective measure to use.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE  said  this  concept is  very  intriguing  and  the                                                               
department would be interested in it.  However, he has not had an                                                               
opportunity  to review  Amendment  4, so  the  department has  no                                                               
position at this time on Amendment 4.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:13:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE said  that he  does not  see any  advantage. He                                                               
only sees  irresponsible releases in many  communities throughout                                                               
the state of  people who continue to offend. He  said he does not                                                               
support the  pretrial risk  assessment. He  does not  support the                                                               
criteria  of the  assessment being  outside of  the realm  of the                                                               
legislature. He  suggested that  it was  created using  the wrong                                                               
criteria and  was extremely generous  in its release  factors. He                                                               
said he will not support Amendment 4.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES  stated she  does not support  Amendment 4.  She did                                                               
not  think the  pretrial risk  assessment has  been working.  She                                                               
said  that the  constant  cost  factors would  create  a need  to                                                               
constantly update this so it would trigger a fiscal note.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:14:29 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD  echoed the comments  made by  Senators Micciche                                                               
and Hughes and said she will be a no vote.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:14:41 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES maintained her objection.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:14:41 PM                                                                                                                    
A  roll call  vote was  taken. Senator  Kiehl voted  in favor  of                                                               
Amendment    4    and    Senators   Micciche,    Reinbold    (via                                                               
teleconference),   and  Hughes   voted  against   it.  Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 4 failed by a 1:3 vote.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:15:17 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  moved  to  adopt  Amendment  5,  work  order  31-                                                               
GS1030\U.5, Radford, 4/18/19.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 5                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                     BY SENATOR KIEHL                                                                 
     TO:  CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line 30:                                                                                                           
          Delete "180"                                                                                                          
          Insert "360"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:15:27 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL explained  Amendment 5. This relates to  a limit on                                                               
a  court  granting  credit  on a  sentence  of  imprisonment  for                                                               
inpatient  treatment. He  stated  that  some inpatient  treatment                                                               
programs exceed 180  days. Amendment 5 would increase  the cap to                                                               
360 days, so it would not create a disincentive.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:16:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  said the  maximum treatment  program she  found was                                                               
180 days  and most are  shorter programs.  She said she  does not                                                               
support Amendment 5.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES maintained her objection.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:16:17 PM                                                                                                                    
A roll  call vote  was taken.  Senators Kiehl  voted in  favor of                                                               
Amendment    5    and    Senators   Micciche,    Reinbold    (via                                                               
teleconference),   and  Hughes   voted  against   it.  Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 5 failed by a 1:3 vote.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:16:42 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  moved  to  adopt  Amendment  6,  work  order  31-                                                               
GS1030\U.6, Radford, 4/18/19.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 6                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE                     BY SENATOR KIEHL                                                                 
     TO:  CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 4:                                                                                                            
          Delete "Rules 38.2 and 45(d)"                                                                                       
          Insert "Rule 38.2"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 15, line 19, through page 17, line 8:                                                                                 
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 18, line 14:                                                                                                          
          Delete "Sections 24 - 26"                                                                                             
          Insert "Sections 24 and 25"                                                                                           
          Delete "secs. 24 - 26"                                                                                                
          Insert "secs. 24 and 25"                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:16:58 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL explained Amendment 6  would relate to a court rule                                                               
change that  would allow  an attorney  to consent  to a  delay on                                                               
behalf  of  his/her  client.  He  said  he  has  a  philosophical                                                               
objection  to this.  If a  defendant wants  to risk  the case  by                                                               
running a trial  against his/her attorney's advice,  it should be                                                               
allowed.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:17:36 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  said  he  does not  support  Amendment  6.  He                                                               
suggested that Mr.  Skidmore would be able to  point out specific                                                               
sections of the bill and why the change is important.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE said that Amendment  6 does as described. This would                                                               
allow the  defendant to  decide if  a case  can be  continued. It                                                               
relates  to a  tactical decision  by  the attorney  in the  case,                                                               
which is the  reason it would allow the attorney  to speak on the                                                               
case  without allowing  the defendant  to weigh  in. He  said the                                                               
philosophical  opposition does  not take  into consideration  the                                                               
additional   downstream  consequences   to   the  legal   system,                                                               
including all  of the  additional work  associated with  giving a                                                               
defendant this  ability, which can  be substantial. He  said that                                                               
he opposes  Amendment 6  because the  current language  makes the                                                               
criminal justice system more efficient.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES maintained her objection.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:19:07 PM                                                                                                                    
A  roll call  vote was  taken. Senator  Kiehl voted  in favor  of                                                               
Amendment    6    and    Senators   Micciche,    Reinbold    (via                                                               
teleconference),   and  Hughes   voted  against   it.  Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 6 failed by a 1:3 vote.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:19:46 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  said that  was the  final amendment.  She explained                                                               
that the majority  of the committee is not available  to move the                                                               
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
[SB 33 was held in committee.]                                                                                                  

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SJR 3 - Sponsor Statement.pdf SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM
SJR 3
SJR 3 Version A.PDF SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM
SJR 3
SJR3 Fiscal Note.pdf SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJR 3
SJR4 Transmittal Letter.pdf SJUD 4/1/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/3/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/3/2019 6:00:00 PM
SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJR 4
SJR4 Version U.pdf SJUD 4/1/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/3/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/3/2019 6:00:00 PM
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJR 4
SJR4 Explanation of Changes Version U.pdf SJUD 4/1/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/3/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/3/2019 6:00:00 PM
SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJR 4
CSSB 33(JUD) Version U.pdf SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM
SB 33
CSSB33 Explanation of Changes from Version M to U.pdf SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM
SB 33