Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
04/07/2005 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB154 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 154 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 154- JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS
3:42:53 PM
MS. HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, sponsor,
told members SB 154 addresses two concerns related to Alaska's
juvenile justice system. First, SB 154 would improve the state's
ability to hold juvenile offenders accountable for their
conduct; second, it would increase the efficiency of the
juvenile justice system by allowing telephonic hearings when a
personal appearance is unnecessary for a fair determination.
MS. BRAKES said SB 154 corrects a serious gap in Alaska statute.
Currently, when a person under 18 commits a delinquent act, the
juvenile justice system is responsible for the matter. When a
person over 18 commits a crime, the adult criminal system
prosecutes. Recent court decisions have determined that when a
youth commits a delinquent act that either goes undiscovered or
for which proceedings are not filed until after the offender
reaches the age of 18, neither the adult nor the juvenile system
has clear jurisdiction under Alaska statute.
3:44:17 PM
MS. BRAKES referred to information in members' packets that
shows the statutory language the court has found to be unclear.
She said SB 154 fills the jurisdictional gap by providing that
delinquent minor statutes apply to a person who commits a
violation of criminal law of the state or a municipality while
under 18 if the period of limitation under AS 12.10 has not
expired. AS 12.10 lays out the different crimes and the statute
of limitations under which charges can be brought.
SB 154 also amends Alaska's delinquency rules to allow for
telephonic participation by juvenile offenders in certain
proceedings. It would still require juvenile offenders to be
present for all hearings when necessary for a fair
determination. The change would apply to court appearances such
as status hearings, where telephonic participation is adequate
for a fair decision. This would avoid expensive travel costs.
3:45:40 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT informed members the court's written decision
says the court cannot correct the problem; the legislature must
clarify the statutory language.
3:46:11 PM
MS. PATTY WARE, Director of the Division of Juvenile Justice,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), said she would
give a brief summary of the legislation and Mr. Newman would
discuss some sample cases to illustrate the problem.
MS. WARE explained that a few cases in the Kenai area brought
the seriousness of the situation to DHSS's attention and
prompted it to look at a statutory change. She said the most
important parts of the bill are Sections 1 and 7. In the two
legal cases in members' packets, the court determined DHSS had
no legal jurisdiction because the offenses were alleged to have
been committed while the minor was still a juvenile. Section 1
creates a new section of statute that says DHSS has legal
authority when these types of cases occur.
MS. WARE said Section 7 of the bill closes the other loophole.
It allows DHSS to adjudicate these cases in court in the same
manner that it does for juvenile offenders under the age of 18.
She indicated that Section 2 is primarily cleanup language to
incorporate this special population. For example, many sections
of Title 47 deal with minors and parents, such as parental
rights to receive notice. None of those sections are relevant
when an offender is over 18.
3:49:28 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if those sections are new sections of
statute.
MS. WARE affirmed they are. She explained that Sections 3
through 6 make changes to the dual sentencing provisions and
delinquency statutes. Under current law, if a person 16 or older
commits a serious offense, the district attorney can file a
petition requesting both a juvenile and adult sentence. If the
person does not follow through with the conditions of the
juvenile sentence, the adult sentence would be imposed. Sections
3 through 6 provide tools for specific circumstances when a
person is perhaps 19 or 20 and the juvenile sentencing
provisions might be effective.
3:50:51 PM
MR. TONY NEWMAN, Program Officer, Division of Juvenile Justice,
DHSS, referred to a chart and told members when a youth under 18
commits almost any offense, he or she is subject to juvenile
justice jurisdiction. If a person is close to age 18 and commits
an offense, the judge can commit the offender to a period of
probation or treatment at a youth facility until he or she
reaches 20 years of age, but the offender would have to consent.
MR. NEWMAN said a juvenile can be dealt with as an adult in the
Alaska Court System in a few ways. The Legislature has decided
that 16 and 17 year olds who commit specific offenses will
automatically be waived into the adult system. Second, DHSS can
get a discretionary waiver if it can demonstrate that a juvenile
is not amenable to treatment. The third method is to impose dual
sentencing provisions - a sentence in both the juvenile and
adult systems for certain serious offenses. If the offender does
not successfully comply with the conditions imposed by the
juvenile system, the adult sentence is applied.
3:54:37 PM
MR. NEWMAN said the court has advised that if a 15 year old
commits murder but is not arrested until age 19, no one has
jurisdiction of the case. If the murder was committed at 16 or
17, the auto-waiver would kick in and adult court would have
jurisdiction. However, if a 16 or 17 year old committed a lesser
offense that was not discovered for several years, no
jurisdiction would apply. Under this bill, the juvenile justice
staff could take a petition forward and get adjudication or a
discretionary waiver if the offender was no longer amenable to
treatment as a juvenile.
If a 17-year-old juvenile committed sexual abuse of a minor in
the second degree and was not arrested until age 18, DHSS could
petition the offense to the court. If adjudicated as a
delinquent, at DHSS's discretion that person could be remanded
to probation supervision, a juvenile facility or to an adult
correctional facility. DHSS could also request dual sentencing.
3:58:30 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if this problem has just recently come to
light.
MS. WARE said although these cases are uncommon and DHSS does
not anticipate many, the two Kenai cases prompted DHSS to
address the situation and fix the "hole" in the statute. It is
not just for serious offenses; it's to make these people
accountable and provide restitution when appropriate.
MS. WARE referenced page 6, section 9 and said she would like to
speak to the proposal for telephonic hearings. Delinquency rules
require that juveniles have the right to appear in person for a
range of hearings. For certain types of hearings, DHSS could
request permission from the court for the juvenile to
participate telephonically or via video. DHSS would like to add
arraignment hearings to the new language on line 17. She
explained that detention reviews and status hearings are short
and transporting juveniles to court can be costly.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if this language mirrors the language
that allows telephonic appearances in the adult system.
MS. WARE deferred to Ms. Carpeneti but said the McLaughlin Youth
Center had technology that allowed juveniles to appear via a
video link but that equipment quit working several years ago and
has not been fixed. She said she does not know how this language
compares to what is allowed in the adult system.
4:04:10 PM
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER said he is appalled to hear that the
equipment at McLaughlin has not been fixed.
MS. WARE said she didn't have the details regarding what
happened but the equipment broke many years ago and it is
possible the equipment is now outdated. She noted when the video
link was initiated 8-10 years ago, there was a positive response
from judges in Anchorage.
SENATOR WAGONER said he had a similar discussion with Portia
Parker of the Department of Corrections about prisoners using a
video link instead of transporting them to courtrooms.
4:05:40 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT called Ms. Carpeneti forward to testify.
4:06:05 PM
MS. ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, said she did not
draft the bill but the Department of Law (DOL) supports it. She
offered to answer questions.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked why the Governor didn't introduce
legislation to address this concern.
MS. CARPENETI said DOL did not draft a bill because of time
constraints.
4:07:12 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT took teleconference testimony.
4:07:25 PM
MR. BOB FRALEY, Superintendent of the Nome Youth Facility, told
members he was at the McLaughlin Youth Center when the video
link was used for uncontested hearings. That equipment was very
effective and saved transportation and staff time. The breakdown
was not in the equipment but in the line between McLaughlin and
the courthouse and the cost of replacement was prohibitive.
He said each year about 50 youths are transported to Kotzebue
from Nome for court hearings. Besides the expense of
transporting a juvenile and staff member, the travel time takes
all day for a 5 to 10 minute hearing and removes a staff person
from an already limited staff situation.
4:10:40 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Carpeneti about Ms. Ware's proposed
amendment.
MS. CARPENETI suggested the following language:
On page 4, line 11, following "custody," insert "or
supervision"
On page 4, line 12, following "under" insert "AS
47.12.120(b) or"
On page 4, line 13, delete "or placement" and insert ",
placement, or supervision"
4:12:52 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked what the upshot of those changes would
be.
4:13:01 PM
MR. NEWMAN said adding custody or supervision encompasses
juveniles in custody or under the division's supervision, such
as those on probation. The statutory reference to AS
47.12.120(b) encompasses individuals who are adjudicated and
either sentenced to probation or to a term in a detention
facility.
4:14:19 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT moved to adopt Ms. Carpeneti's suggested
language as a conceptual amendment [Amendment 1]. Without
objection, the motion carried.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if DHSS wanted to add arraignments to the
list of hearings that juveniles could participate in
telephonically (page 6, line 17).
MS. CARPENETI suggested placing the word "arraignment" after the
word "for" on page 6, line 17.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if arraignments were intentionally left
out of the statute.
MR. NEWMAN explained that arraignments are often uncontested and
brief. DHSS staff thought offenders could easily participate
telephonically. On the other hand, an arraignment is the
individual's first dealing with the justice system so it could
be critical. This amendment would give DHSS the discretion to
decide.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if no one has to appear if an arraignment
is uncontested.
MR. NEWMAN said that is correct.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if not contesting is different than
waiving an appearance.
MS. CARPENETI said they are a bit different. A person is advised
of his or her rights at an arraignment. A person can waive his
or her right to participate in person and choose to participate
telephonically.
4:16:35 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT motioned to adopt conceptual Amendment 2. There
being no objection, it was so ordered. He asked if any other
areas of the bill needed change.
4:16:56 PM
MS. CARPENETI said on page 6, line 10, the statute reference
should be AS 47.14.010 - 47.14.050 rather than AS 47.14.010 -
47.14.130.
CHAIR THERRIAULT moved that citation change as Amendment 3.
There being no objection, the motion carried.
4:18:16 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted the bill has a Senate Judiciary Committee
referral and asked members if they were comfortable moving the
bill out of committee.
SENATOR DAVIS said she had no objection to moving the bill.
SENATOR WAGONER concurred.
4:18:31 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT indicated the bill has three fiscal notes and
said he would ask the Senate Judiciary chair to have the public
defender appear to justify the agency's indeterminate fiscal
note because it might trigger a Senate Finance Committee
referral.
4:19:03 PM
SENATOR WAGONER motioned to report CSSB 154(STA) and its three
attached fiscal notes from committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|