Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/18/1994 01:39 PM House FIN
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE January 18, 1994 1:39 p.m. TAPE HFC 94-5, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 94-5, Side 2, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 94-6, Side 1, #000 - 431. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Larson called the House Finance Committee to order at 1:39 p.m. PRESENT Co-Chair Larson Representative Hoffman Co-Chair MacLean Representative Martin Vice-Chair Hanley Representative Navarre Representative Brown Representative Parnell Representative Foster Representative Therriault Representative Grussendorf ALSO PRESENT Senator Rick Halford; Representative Tom Brice; Arthur H. Snowden, II, Administrative Director, Alaska Court System; Richard L. Burton, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety; Edward McNally, District Attorney, Department of Law; Dean Guaneli, Chief, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Margot Knuth, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Diane Schenker, Special Assistant, Department of Corrections; John Salemi, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration; Brant McGee, Director, Office of Public Advocacy, Department of Administration; David Stone, Alaska Council of Producers; Anthony Williams, Alaska Miners Association; Patrick Conheady, Private Attorney; Jerry Luckhaupt, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Affairs Agency; SUMMARY INFORMATION HB 132 "An Act extending the time period of all permits issued by the state relating to the extraction or removal of resources if the holder of the permits is involved in litigation concerning the issuance or validity of any permit related to the extraction or removal." CSHB 132 (JUD) was HELD in Committee for further discussion. SB 19 "An Act relating to the crime of conspiracy." 1 CSSB 19 (FIN)am was HELD in Committee for further discussion. SENATE BILL NO. 19 "An Act relating to the crime of conspiracy." Co-Chair Larson observed that CSSB 19 (FIN)am was assigned to a subcommittee consisting of Chair Representative Hanley and Representatives Parnell and Hoffman, on 3/23/93. Representative Hanley noted that the subcommittee did not alter CSSB 19 (FIN)am. Representative Brown OBJECTED to consideration of CSSB 19 (FIN)am, by the House Finance Committee. By point of order, she noted that CSSB 19 (FIN)am had been considered by a committee not constituted correctly under the uniform rules. SENATOR RICK HALFORD noted that CSSB 19 (FIN)am would create a separate crime of conspiracy. He spoke in support of the Department of Corrections' fiscal note. Representative Brown referred to page 1, line 6, "agrees". She suggested that "agrees" be augmented with "and communicates the agreement to the other person or persons". Senator Halford did not think that the additional phrasing was necessary. Representative Brown argued that further clarification is necessary. She noted that the person being charged did not have to be involved in the overt act. ARTHUR H. SNOWDEN, II, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM expressed concern that the legislation would have a fiscal impact on the Alaska Court System. He estimated that court workloads would increase due to longer trials. He asked that the Alaska Court System fiscal note be adopted. He suggested that intent language could be added to lapse funding if no more than 6 trials pertaining to conspiracy charges are tried in the fiscal year. He observed that there are only three court rooms in the state that can accommodate trials with multiple defendants. BRANT MCGEE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION noted that the Office of Public Advocacy will defend conspiracy cases if the Public Defender Agency has a conflict of interest. He estimated that the Office of Public Advocacy would represent 75 percent of conspiracy cases. He assumed that the majority of defendants would be indigent. He emphasized that conspiracy trials would involve multiple defendants and be intensely litigated and 2 expensive. He disagreed with assumptions, by the Department of Law, that multiple defendant cases would reduce court costs. He pointed out that lawyers representing one client would have to be in attendance for the entire trial length. He maintained that costs to the Office of Public Advocacy will triple. PAT CONHEADY, PRIVATE ATTORNEY asserted that the legislation is not necessary. He maintained that it is substantially more expensive to defend a conspiracy charge. He stated that the bill to government agencies from the Office of Public Advocacy in conspiracy cases has been four times greater than in other cases. He stressed the need for plea bargaining and a process for screening cases. He noted that the Attorney General banned plea bargaining in the 1970's. EDWARD MCNALLY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ANCHORAGE, DEPARTMENT OF LAW emphasized that the State of Alaska is the only state that does not have a conspiracy law. He pointed out that conspiracy laws are not new. He maintained that cases involving conspiracies in the State of Alaska would continue to be tried by the federal government if the legislation is not adopted. He stressed that multiple defender trials provide the jury and judge with a clearer picture of the crime. He discussed a case consisting of multiple narcotic defendants to demonstrate how separate trials would not tell the whole story. He estimated that a conspiracy law would primarily be used in cases involving narcotics. Mr. McNally acknowledged that the federal government can try conspiracy cases in Alaska, but pointed out that only the most serious cases would be tried in federal court. He emphasized that rural areas of the State of Alaska would benefit from the legislation against smaller narcotic operations. Mr. McNally disputed previous statements by Mr. McGee. He stated that most conspiracy trials would only involve 2 to 3 defendants. He disagreed that trial time in conspiracy cases would be longer than the sum of separate trials. Mr. McNally asserted that many conspiracy cases do not go to trial. He maintained that conspiracy trials increase the probability that defendants will be convicted. Mr. McNally referred to Representative Brown's suggestion that "agrees" be augmented with "and communicates the agreement to the other person or persons". He felt that the language would weaken the legislation. He pointed out that the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to agree, actually did agree and that an overt act was committed in furtherance of the agreement. 3 Representative Navarre asked if there would be fracturing of cases when the charge of conspiracy is employed. Mr. McNally replied that it would be extremely difficult to fracture cases involving conspiracy. He noted that cases containing overlapping confessions would still be fractured. (Tape Change, HFC 94-5, Side 2) Representative Brown questioned how the prosecution would demonstrate agreement if it was not communicated. Mr. Nally answered that inference would be used. Representative Brown asked how agreement would be demonstrated if both parties were not involved in the overt act. Mr. McNally emphasized that enough evidence must be present to convince the jury. He pointed out that federal law uses "conspires" instead of "agrees". He maintained that the jury process will prevent misuse of the law. In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr. McNally discussed "entrapment". He stated that initiation of the offense can not come from law enforcement officers. Mr. McNally observed that conspiracy charges are not used to charge someone involved in a different type of crime, such as soliciting laws. He emphasized that conspiracy is a separate crime. Conspiracy law would allow prosecutors to charge offenders not otherwise charged. Mr. McNally pointed out that conspiracy charges carry a slightly less serious penalty than the actual crime. He explained that in exchange for a lesser penalty prosecutors may obtain evidence concerning others not involved in the overt action. Mr. McNally acknowledged that state prosecutors will need to confer in order to determine how a conspiracy law will be utilized, after legislation is passed. In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr. McNally stated that he expected that the ban on plea bargaining will be lifted by the Attorney General. JOHN SALEMI, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION testified via the teleconference network from Anchorage. He emphasized that the legislation will create a new and distinct category of crime. He suggested that more conspiracy cases will come to trial than estimated by Mr. McNally. He pointed out that a conspiracy law could be used for prosecution of gang activities. He maintained that the legislation will result in an increase in prosecution. 4 Mr. Salemi accentuated that conspiracy trials will be long and costly. He disagreed that a conspiracy trial would be more effective in demonstrating the entire picture of a crime than separate trials of multiple defenders. He questioned the credibility of defendants involved in the lessening of their charges in exchange for information regarding another party. Mr. Salemi referred to the Office of Public Advocacy's fiscal note. He suggested that the estimation of fiscal impact is conservative. Representative Brown expressed concern that the legislation would be passed without the accompanying fiscal notes. Mr. Salemi replied that if the legislation is passed without increased fiscal support postponement of cases would probably result. The postponement of cases would be more detrimental to the prosecution than to the defense. (Tape Change, HFC 94-6, Side 1) RICHARD L. BURTON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY testified on behalf of the legislation. He envisioned that conspiracy laws would be used to pursue crimes under contemplation. He felt the legislation would allow proactive or preventative law enforcement. He disagreed with the previous statement that most defendants would be indigent. DIANE SCHENKER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS discussed the Department's fiscal note. She stated that the fiscal note estimates a 1 percent increase in incarceration due to cases involving conspiracy for unclassified class A or B crimes against persons. She added that the cost per day for incarceration will be higher in FY 95 than in FY 94. She emphasized that the State of Alaska's correction system is at full capacity. CSSB 19 (FIN)am was HELD in Committee for further discussion. HOUSE BILL NO. 132 "An Act extending the time period of all permits issued by the state relating to the extraction or removal of resources if the holder of the permits is involved in litigation concerning the issuance or validity of any permit related to the extraction or removal." REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained that CSHB 132 (JUD) would allow state resource permits to be extended while the holder 5 is under litigation. The permit would be extended by the amount of time spent in litigation. The extension would not be issued unless the permit holder was prevented from operating by a court order from the lawsuit and the holder won the suit. ANTHONY WILLIAMS, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION spoke in support of CSHB 132 (JUD). Representative Therriault asked if the extension should be tied to a court ordered injunction. He pointed out that litigation could cause the developers to lose their financial backing. He asserted that the simple fact of litigation can prevent development of a project. Representatives Brice and Therriault agreed to research legal wording of an amendment which would address the permits under litigation when a court injunction has not been issued. Representative Brown asked how the property rights and contract provisions of Oil and Gas leases would be effected. JERRY LUCKHAUPT, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY discussed the validity of the state or federal permit. The legislation is limited to suits against issuance and validity of permits. DAVID STONE, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF ALASKA PRODUCERS spoke in support of CSHB 132 (JUD). He emphasized that litigation of permits is one of the major issues involving the development and operation of mining projects. CSHB 132 (JUD) was HELD in Committee for further discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:31 p.m. 6
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|