Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/02/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB359 | |
| HB292 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 359 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 292 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 2, 2012
1:37 p.m.
1:37:01 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law;
Richard Svobodny, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law; Lisa Mariotti, Policy
Director, Alaska Network of Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Office of the
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System; Jane Pierson,
Staff, Representative Steve Thompson; Beth Chapman, Private
Attorney, Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Regina Chennault, Physician and Member, Violent Crimes
Compensation Board; Gloria O'Neill, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Anchorage;
Sergeant Kathy Lacey, Anchorage Police Department;
Lieutenant Rodney Dial, State Trooper, Department of Public
Safety; Gerad Godfrey, Chair, Violent Crimes Compensation
Board; Alice Myers, Board Member, Mary Magdalene Home
Alaska, Anchorage; Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender Agency;
David Shaftel, Private Attorney, Anchorage; Douglas
Blattmachr, Alaska Trust Company.
SUMMARY
HB 292 PRINCIP.& INC/PROBATE/UTMA/RETIREMT/ETC.
CSHB 292(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (CED).
HB 359 SEX CRIMES; TESTIMONY BY VIDEO CONFERENCE
CSHB 359(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with two new zero
fiscal notes from the Department of
Administration, two new zero fiscal notes from
the Department of Public Safety, one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Law, one new
indeterminate note from the Department of
Corrections, and one previously published
indeterminate fiscal note: FN8 (CRT).
HOUSE BILL NO. 359
"An Act relating to conspiracy to commit human
trafficking in the first degree or sex trafficking in
the first degree; relating to the crime of furnishing
indecent material to minors, the crime of online
enticement of a minor, the crime of prostitution, and
the crime of sex trafficking; relating to forfeiture
of property used in prostitution offenses; relating to
sex offender registration; relating to testimony by
video conference; adding Rule 38.3, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
1:37:40 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
introduced testifiers representing the Department of Law
(LAW), as well as other experts in the field that were
available for questions.
RICHARD SVOBODNY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, was present for questions.
REGINA CHENNAULT, PHYSICIAN AND MEMBER, VIOLENT CRIMES
COMPENSATION BOARD (via teleconference), spoke in strong
support of the bill. She testified that her membership on
the board offered her firsthand knowledge of the damage
caused as a result of sex trafficking. She spoke of a case
in Anchorage that involved an offender driving the streets
of the city and abducting children on their way to school,
then forcing them into sex trafficking through drugs,
bodily harm, and intimidation. She stated that one 16 year
old young woman abducted by the offender ended up brutally
beaten, pregnant, addicted to drugs, and suffering from
multiple, life-long sexually transmitted diseases. She
furthered that experience as a trauma surgeon had shown her
that when left unchecked, offenders and victims continued
the cycle of violence through generations. She thought that
a provision pertaining to any harm of an unborn child
should be considered.
1:42:33 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze directed attention to a provision in the
bill that provided for video conferencing for the
competency hearing and the trial. He queried her stance on
the subject of video conferencing.
Dr. Chennault asked for clarification of the question.
Ms. Carpeneti explained that there were two provisions in
the bill related to the simultaneous taking of testimony
from victims by video conferencing. She said that one was
for the pre-trial competency hearing and the other was for
the actual trial. She qualified that the trial provision
was very limited because of the right of cross examination.
She furthered that the competency provision was broader,
but the court held the burden to determine the fairness of
the proceedings.
Dr. Chennault responded that if the child victim could not
be present at the court proceedings the video conferencing
provisions would be a key asset for the prosecution of
offenders.
1:46:12 PM
GLORIA O'NEILL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COOK
INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. She testified that the council was
particularly troubled by the luring of young Alaska Native
women from villages into the sex trade. She pointed out to
the committee that sex traffickers often preyed upon the
most vulnerable, and often most invisible to society: the
homeless, runaway youth, and youth in foster care. She
asserted that there were a disproportionate number of
Native women in the sex trade in Anchorage. She relayed
that the typical age for Alaska Native females entering
into the trade was 15 to 17 years old, and that they were
especially vulnerable because they could be labeled as
"exotic." She supported the bill because it recognized that
the victims of the trade were just that: victims, and not
prostitutes or criminals. She added that the council
supported increased sentences for perpetrators. She
stressed that the council was dedicated to partnering with
public and private entities to ensure that there were
appropriate preventative and response services for victims
in the hope that victims would move on to lead happy and
successful lives.
1:48:55 PM
SERGEANT KATHY LACEY, ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT (via
teleconference), voiced support for the legislation. She
noted that the language change from "promoting
prostitution" to "sex trafficking" was significant because
"promoting prostitution" implied a business arrangement
between the trafficker and the victim. She furthered that
the average age of entry into the trade was 14 years-of-
age, and that the young age made victims particularly
vulnerable. She believed that increasing penalties for the
patrons of prostitution was also important.
1:51:23 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough solicited her opinion about striking
the videoconferencing provision, which was intended to
address the 6th amendment right to confront and question
the accuser.
Ms. Lacey noted that she had not seen the amendment;
however, she believed that whatever could be done to make
the situation easier on the victims, the better.
LIEUTENANT RODNEY DIAL, STATE TROOPER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill
and was available for questions.
GERAD GODFREY, CHAIR, VIOLENT CRIMES COMPENSATION BOARD
(via teleconference), pointed to a letter of support
included in members' packets (copy on file). He voiced
strong support for the victim centered approach taken by
the bill. He shared that while serving on the board he had
noticed that a certain percentage of victims that submitted
claims had been on an unhealthy life trajectory. He thought
that the state, through legislation, could assist the
victims in becoming positive members of society. He stated
that sex trafficking victims typically had low self-esteem,
which was compounded by working in the trade. He believed
that the system should be sensitive about labeling victims.
He relayed that victims were able to recognize their self-
worth when those who exploited them suffered severe
consequences. He asserted that the videoconference
provision was important because it would allow the victim
to be part of the process without the fear of re-
victimization.
1:58:25 PM
LISA MARIOTTI, POLICY DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, spoke in strong support of the
legislation; specifically, the language change of
"promoting prostitution" to "sex trafficking" because it
maintained focus on the acts of a perpetrator. She stated
that the victims of sex trafficking were often the most
vulnerable members of society; homeless adults and children
of both sexes were often preyed on by groups of
perpetrators. She testified in support of increasing
penalties for patronizing a prostitute; particularly if the
sex worker was a minor.
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the use of
videoconferencing; specifically, children who were victims
of sexual assault being allowed to provide video testimony
instead of appearing in a courtroom. She shared that the
administration had requested that the committee consider
allowing videoconferencing for competency hearings of
defendants. She asked Ms. Mariotti's opinion on the matter.
Ms. Mariotti responded that LAW was trying to address the
fact that there were very few experts available in Alaska.
She addressed the children videoconferencing law, which had
been upheld in the court of appeals. She assured the
committee that LAW had worked to balance the constitutional
rights of the victim and the confrontational rights of the
defendant under the 6th Amendment. She thought that it
would be challenged, but that LAW would win the challenge.
Vice-chair Fairclough understood that there were certain
situations under which a judge, or jury, could allow
videoconferencing. She queried the circumstances under
which a vulnerable child could testify through
videoconference.
2:03:30 PM
Ms. Mariotti replied that she was not an expert in the
area. She believed that the basis for the videoconferencing
provision was because children were particularly
vulnerable. She said the provision could be extended to
victims who could be re-traumatized by facing their
perpetrators in court.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the bill allowed for remote
testimony if the witness was unavailable to appear in
person. She said that the proposed procedure would be two-
way video, and would require the witness to see the
courtroom as if they were actually sitting in the witness
stand. She added that the provision supplemented current
law, which allowed for one way video testimony of a child
victim, if the court found that facing the person in court
would be too traumatic. She relayed that in certain, fact-
specific circumstances, where the witness could not make it
to the court room, the witness could testify remotely.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked whether there would be a person
from the court system with the videoconferencing witness.
Ms. Carpeneti answered that the bill required the victim to
be alone with the videoconference. She clarified that an
application could be made to the court to allow for a
person to accompany a child for support.
Representative Gara asserted that he did not intend for his
amendment to lead to the re-victimization of witnesses. He
said that the bill did not seem to be aimed at protecting
victims from being re-victimized. He cited Page 16, which
allowed for the videoconference testimony if the witness
was unavailable. He pointed to the mandatory requirements
for videoconferencing:
(1) the requesting party establishes that testimony by
two-way video conference is necessary to further an
important public policy;
(2) the requesting party establishes that the witness
is unavailable
He surmised that if the witness was available, even if they
were a victim, the provision would not apply.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed. She explained that the witness may
have moved out of state, which would make them unavailable.
She stressed that if the witness was a child under 16 years
of age, the court of appeals had upheld that one-way video
could be used.
Ms. Carpeneti furthered that the court rule in Section 24
of the bill was limited. She stated that the procedure had
been upheld by the United States Supreme Court, and was
similar to a procedure that had been upheld by the state's
court of appeals.
Representative Gara asked if there were procedures in place
that would protect witnesses in the courtroom.
2:09:56 PM
Ms. Carpeneti responded that victims were protected under
statute, but not necessarily in the courtroom setting. She
stated that the right of notice, and the opportunity to be
heard were among the protections provided by the court.
Representative Gara hypothesized that the court could allow
testimony to happen by deposition, with all parties in
different locations.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the courts had held that the
two-way video conferencing was fair to all people involved
because it gave the judge the chance to evaluate the
person's demeanor.
ALICE MYERS, BOARD MEMBER, MARY MAGDALENE HOME ALASKA,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in favor of the
legislation. She testified that many of the women that
passed through the home had been preyed upon in their youth
by pimps, working prostitutes, and in some cases their own
mothers. She opined that it was common for a child to begin
soliciting under the tutelage of the mother. She said the
mother would in turn sell the child to a pimp for drugs.
She added that the women that passed through the home did
not have the job skills needed to build a new life. She
said they were often homeless, poor, unskilled,
undereducated, drug addicted, mentally and physically
unhealthy, felons, lacking in familial support, and most
all of them were mothers. She relayed that these women
continued to exist in a cycle; rotating between survival on
the streets and incarceration, and often incarceration was
a welcome respite. She testified in support of the language
change in the bill, and the addition of stronger patron
accountability.
2:15:52 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, explained that the
competency hearings in Section 16 of the legislation were
not uncommon. She said that the hearings were part of a
criminal case; however, during a competency hearing not all
defendant protections would be attached. She thought that
there could be questions concerning the constitutionality
of the provision, but that the court had no opinion on the
matter. She clarified that not every courtroom currently
had the capacity to support the two-way video conferencing.
She directed attention to the indeterminate fiscal note.
She said that in some situations Skype could be used, but
that the court did not have the ability to provide high-
quality, high-sound video in all different criminal
proceedings. She said that Section 24 of the bill could
apply in all criminal cases.
Representative Guttenberg queried the issue of severability
regarding the legislation.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that there was a general
severability statute in Alaska law that provided that if
one provision in a bill was found to be unconstitutional
the rest of the bill would still stand.
Ms. Meade elaborated that the video-conferencing portions
of the bill were not necessarily related to the sex
trafficking provision; they were two different parts of
criminal law that would be changed by the bill.
Representative Doogan asked for an explanation of Page 16,
line 20. He wanted to know the standard of "clear and
convincing evidence," as well as what it was being applied
to on lines 30 and 31.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that "clear and convincing
evidence" was a standard that was more difficult to reach
than preponderance of evidence, which was the standard used
in most civil litigation. She said that the state was
required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt before someone
could be convicted of a crime, which was the highest burden
of proof in law. She relayed that "clear and convincing"
rested between "preponderance of evidence" and "beyond a
reasonable doubt."
2:21:31 PM
Representative Doogan asked why the highest standard of
beyond a reasonable doubt had not been used.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the court of appeals had found
that clear and convincing would be the appropriate burden
of proof in the case of unavailability of child witnesses.
Representative Doogan noted that the same standard applied
throughout the legislation to patrons of prostitution.
Ms. Carpeneti clarified that the standard that applied to a
patron of a prostitute was beyond a reasonable doubt.
Co-Chair Thomas thought that plea bargains should not be
allowed in child sex trafficking cases. He felt that
perpetrators should be barred from hiring the best and most
capable attorneys.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the state public defender was
excellent. She reminded the committee that the right to an
attorney was protected under the constitution. She added
that the crime of sex trafficking in the first degree as
described in the bill would be an unclassified felony,
which was the highest level of crime under state law.
2:26:00 PM
Representative Gara cited Page 16. He surmised that the
court had a stronger interest in protecting victims as
opposed to generic witnesses. He understood that the
provision would apply to all unavailable witnesses. He
suggested limiting Line 5 to "testimony from a victim." He
thought that the court would be more willing to protect a
victim. He believed that this would protect victims without
extending the provision to other witnesses.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that there were some witnesses who
could be critical to the prosecution of the case, that were
not the victim, but were unavailable. She said that the
rule would only be applied if the court found that the
witness had a connection to a particular victim under a
particular fact pattern. She stressed that the provision
would have to be justified and would be limited. She shared
that the language followed what the United States Supreme
Court had upheld under Maryland v. Craig [The court ruled
that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, which
provides criminal defendants with the right to confront
witnesses against them, did not bar the use of one-way
closed circuit television to present testimony by an
alleged child sex abuse victim.] She shared that the
decision in that case had required the court to make fact
specific determinations that a particular witness, for a
particular case, justified the use of videoconferencing.
Representative Gara understood that presently, the courts
deposed witnesses if they were unavailable.
Ms. Carpeneti said that a deposition was a possibility, and
then the court would decide if it was admissible. She
furthered that a two-way video would be more helpful to the
process than a flat deposition.
Representative Neuman expressed concern with the lack of
definition for "indecent materials" found on Page 3, line
31 of the legislation.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that Section 4, page 3, line 30 was
specifically in the bill to address a decision by the
Federal District Court, which found that the state's
statute prohibiting the distribution of indecent materials
to minors was unconstitutionally overbroad. The section had
been rewritten in order to address the concerns of that
decision; it required the state to prove that the defendant
intentionally distributed the material, or possessed it
with the intention to distribute, to a person known, or
believed, to be a child. She cited Page 4, lines 9 through
18, which described the prohibited material.
2:31:54 PM
Representative Neuman opined that the language on Page 4
described acts, and not material. He asserted that indecent
material could be any number of things. He requested a
description of exactly what were indecent materials.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the provision would cover
material in a variety of formats: books, email, video, any
material that included the prohibited acts.
Representative Neuman explained that his concern stemmed
from the fact that there were definitions in the bill for
other acts.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that Section 3 of the bill expanded
the definition of "serious felony offense" solely for the
purpose of the law dealing with conspiracy. She said that
the law that dealt with conspiracy was limited in its
application to serious crimes. She explained that the bill
provided for two additional crimes: human trafficking in
the first degree and sex trafficking in the second degree.
Representative Neuman wondered whether it would be better
to include a description of what the indecent materials
were. Additionally, he pointed to Section 13 related to the
forfeiture of property; he asked for a definition of
property.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the forfeiture provision would
include items such as cars, houses, money; anything used to
institute, aid, or facilitate sex trafficking, as well as
anything received or derived from sex trafficking. She
stated that current law allowed that the state could seek
forfeiture of money or property that was used to commit sex
trafficking. The legislation would add the crime of
promoting prostitution by an adult seeking a prostitute who
was underage.
Representative Wilson wondered what the current ultimate
penalty was for a perpetrator related sex trafficking.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the maximum term was 99 years.
She noted that the bill only changed the penalty applied to
the patron of a prostitute. She furthered that if the sex
worker was under 18, and if there were three or more years
between the patron and the worker, the penalty would be a
Class C felony.
Representative Wilson wondered why it mattered how old the
patron was, if the victim was a minor.
Ms. Carpeneti believed that the age of the patron was
important because it was expected that the patron would be
of an age of maturity, and would be more cognizant of their
behavior when patronizing a minor sex worker.
2:38:32 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that some patrons consider
sexual activity with a minor exotic, which meant that pimps
would receive a premium price. She explained that this was
the reasoning behind increasing the penalty for patron
knowingly soliciting underage prostitutes.
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered what would prevent the
department from using expert witnesses exclusively in a
two-way video conference. She thought that this would
ensure that the jury heard from the best experts possible.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the reason for putting the
possibility in statute was that there was a shortage of
psychiatrists and psychologists that had the expertise to
testify to the competency of a person charged with a crime.
She said that the approach was to use the expertise and
resources as efficiently as possible; for example, having
an expert appear by videoconference in a village, rather
than having the expert travel. She stated that as long as
the court found that it was fair, and all participants had
a fair chance to examine the witness, out-of-state experts
could be used.
Vice-chair Fairclough offered that a defense would then
have the same opportunity to provide an expert. She noted
that weather conditions occasionally made it impossible for
in-time arrival to some communities. She believed the
benefits of the two-way conferencing outweighed the
negatives. She thought that it was important to recognize
that technological advancements, like two-way
videoconferencing, were realities to consider in the future
crafting of policy.
Co-Chair Stoltze moved to amendments.
Representative Gara had no intention of offering amendment
2. He stressed that the amendment had not been written with
the intention of re-victimizing witnesses.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 5, line 15:
After "under" delete "18"
After "under" insert "20"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained Amendment 1. He believed that
young women were barely out of high school at age 20, and
were therefore as impressionable as someone who was 18. He
thought that increasing the penalty for a sex trafficker
who hired a person under age 20, rather than 18, would
result in fewer young people entering the sex trade.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed that people under 20 years old were
very vulnerable.
Co-Chair Thomas opined that defense lawyers for sex
traffickers were often provided at the expense of the
state.
Representative Costello asked what the sentencing
guidelines would be for the crime of sex trafficking in the
first degree involving an 18 year-old, as the bill was
currently written. She queried the same sentencing
guidelines and crime label if the victim was a 19 year-old.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the bill would raise the
penalty for a patronizing an under aged prostitute (if
there was three years age difference between the patron and
the prostitute) from a Class B misdemeanor to a Class C
felony, which was five years in jail. She said that sex
trafficking in the first degree would be an unclassified
felony if the victim was under 18 years old and would have
a maximum term of 99 years. Under current law if the victim
was over 18 the maximum term was 20 years. She furthered
that sex trafficking in the second degree was a Class B
felony that could result in 10 years in prison. She relayed
that sex trafficking in the third degree was a Class C
felony and carried a maximum term of 5 years and sex
trafficking in the fourth degree was a Class A misdemeanor,
with a maximum term of one year. She noted that the
penalties for sex trafficking were not changed in the
legislation. She said that if the age was changed from
under 18 to under 20, the penalty for people that induced
victims under 20 would be raised to an unclassified felony.
Representative Costello wondered whether there was any
overlap related to the minimum and maximum terms that would
be given to perpetrators.
Ms. Carpeneti answered that she had just listed the maximum
terms of imprisonment. She specified that the sentencing
ranges could be found in AS 12.55.125. She stated that the
term would depend on the offender's criminal history. She
assured the committee that the state had significant
sentencing ranges for people who victimized other people in
a sexual way.
Representative Costello probed what change the amendment
would have in the overall effect of the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that the question was about
what would happen to 19 year-old victims.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the defendant would be subject
to an unclassified felony prosecution. She added that under
current law someone found guilty of soliciting a 19 year
old would be subject to a maximum term of 20 years in
prison.
2:53:15 PM
Representative Costello queried the minimum sentences.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that a defendant that was convicted
of sex trafficking in the first degree when the victim was
under 18, and if the victim was under 13 years-old, first
offense: 25 to 35 years; 13 years-old and above: 20 to 30
years. She added that the range would increase if a firearm
or weapon was used.
Representative Joule understood the range encompassed the
minimum to the maximum sentence that could be given.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that when a judge was sentencing a
person for the first offense of sex trafficking of a child,
the range if the victim was under 13 years-old would be 25
to 35 years. She said that the range would be subject to
alteration depending on mitigating or aggravating factors.
Representative Joule surmised that the minimum sentence was
a moving target based on aggravated or mitigating
circumstances.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that that was true.
Representative Neuman understood that the age change in the
proposed amendment would make the law stricter.
Ms. Carpeneti responded in the affirmative.
Representative Gara clarified that the amendment spoke to
the sex trafficker and not the patron.
Representative Wilson wondered if the amendment changed the
original intent of the bill, which was to protect minors
age 18 and under.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that generally speaking in criminal
law terms a minor was a person under 18 who was addressed
by the juvenile justice system. She said that in certain
circumstances the courts could treat people as juveniles up
to 20 years of age.
2:58:35 PM
Representative Wilson wondered how the change would impact
the fiscal note. She maintained her OBJECTION to the
amendment.
Representative Gara clarified that the amendment only
related to the sentence against the sex trafficker. He
reiterated that it would not change any of the laws
relating to a minor.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed that the amendment would only change
the penalty for promoting prostitution in the first degree
for a person who was guilty of the trafficking of a person
under the age of 20.
Co-Chair Stoltze reiterated that the amendment would not
affect the patron or the victim.
Representative Joule clarified that the judge had the
discretion to declare a person a minor even if the person
was over the age of 18.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that she did not know whether the
judge would have the authority. She stressed that the
legislature would define the crime in the bill, which would
inform the prosecution and the court system of the elements
of the crime.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
3:02:12 PM
Co-Chair Thomas revisited whether the bill could be changed
so that people accused of sex trafficking would be barred
from retaining a state appointed public defender.
Ms. Carpeneti advised against limiting the availability of
public defenders. She stated that the accused had the right
under constitutional law to a criminal defense lawyer.
Co-Chair Thomas maintained his position that defendants in
sex trafficking cases should not be allowed a defense paid
for by the state.
Representative Gara explained that public defenders were
awarded to defendants that met specific poverty guidelines.
He added that not many sex traffickers were poor. He
recognized that defendants could hide their assets.
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed to the fiscal notes: Court
System, Department of Administration, Department of Public
Safety, Department of Law, Department of Corrections.
Representative Costello pointed to a typo in OMB component
number 43 in the word substitute.
3:07:52 PM
Representative Doogan opined that another indeterminate
fiscal note was attached to legislation before the
committee.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSHB 359(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 359(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two new zero fiscal notes
from the Department of Administration, two new zero fiscal
notes from the Department of Public Safety, one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Law, one new
indeterminate note from the Department of Corrections, and
one previously published indeterminate fiscal note: FN8
(CRT).
3:08:36 PM
AT EASE
3:14:17 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 292
"An Act relating to property exemptions for retirement
plans; relating to pleadings, orders, liability, and
notices under the Uniform Probate Code; relating to
the Alaska Principal and Income Act; relating to the
Alaska Uniform Transfers to Minors Act; relating to
the disposition of human remains; relating to
insurable interests for life insurance policies;
relating to transfers of individual retirement plans;
relating to the community property of married persons;
and amending Rule 301(a), Alaska Rules of Evidence."
3:14:40 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED CSHB 292(L&C), 27-LS1232/I as a
working document before the committee. There being NO
OBJECTION it was so ordered.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
explained the legislation. She read from the sponsor
statement:
House Bill 292 provides for amendments to statute in
the following areas:
· Extends protection for retirement plan assets to
the beneficiaries of retirement plans (often the
surviving spouse).
· Provides means of representation for minors and
incapacitated persons in dealing with settlements
of accounts or settlement agreements.
· Amends the 2003 Alaska Principal and Income Act
to conform to current IRS regulations.
· Provides rules concerning who may control the
disposition of decedents' remains.
· Makes conforming amendments to Alaska's laws
regarding insurable interests to align with
changes to the Uniform Trust Code.
· Provides that IRA interests can be voluntarily
transferred to a family member or trust.
· Makes amendments to Alaska's community property
provisions to update and clarify the ownership of
community property.
· Allows a beneficiary to extend the time funds
will be held in a Uniform Transfer to Minors
Account.
3:17:08 PM
DAVID SHAFTEL, PRIVATE ATTORNEY, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), detailed the sectional analysis (copy on
file).
Representative Edgmon asked for the highlights of the bill.
Mr. Shaftel pointed to Section 4 and 5, which dealt with
extending virtual representation from agreements that were
reached in court to agreements that were reached outside of
court, such as settlements or trust accountings. He
furthered that Sections 6 through 8 spoke to a method for
modifying trust, and had been adopted by 13 states. He
continued to explain that Sections 9-25 dealt with the
Alaska Principal and Income Act, and incorporated new
federal regulations and recommendations from national
experts to improve the income act. Sections 26 through 28
detailed the amendments to Alaska Uniform Transfers to
Minors Act; the change allowed, with the minors consent,
the extension of the accounts beyond the age of 25. He
concluded that Section 29 related to decedents remains.
3:22:19 PM
Representative Costello asked whether Sections 26 through
28 provided a ceiling of 25 years of age, or extended the
age.
Mr. Shaftel replied that the extension could be applied to
any age that was agreeable to the minor and the custodian.
Representative Costello asked about the priority list in
Section 29 related to the decision of disposing of remains.
Mr. Shaftel answered that the list could be found on Pages
24 and 25 of the bill. He continued to Section 30, which
spoke to insurable interests and clarified the law and made
it clear that trusts and business entities could own life
insurance if the beneficiaries were those with an insurable
interest. He stated that Section 31 dealt with transfers of
IRA interests and allowed for the voluntary transfer of IRA
interests for estate planning purposes. Sections 32 through
36 spoke to the state community property act and clarified
survivorship questions and beneficiary designations.
3:25:23 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about sections 6 through 8;
particularly the last paragraph. He wondered about the
level of flexibility that would be allowed for adjusting to
changing circumstances.
Mr. Shaftel replied that the statute was a result of
hearing in New York concerning the balance of correcting
administrative types of errors and dispositive changes. He
said that when making a change to the trust the dispositive
plan in place would need to be followed. He said that
increasingly he had seen plans where the trustee was given
absolute discretion to make distributions, which allowed
for more leeway. He relayed that there was no such thing
anymore as a completely irrevocable trust. He stressed that
the provision had been carefully vetted.
3:27:58 PM
DOUGLAS BLATTMACHR, ALASKA TRUST COMPANY (via
teleconference), spoke in strong support of the bill.
BETH CHAPMAN, PRIVATE ATTORNEY, JUNEAU, strongly supported
the legislation.
Representative Gara asked whether there was any language in
the bill that would weaken the rights of beneficiaries or
victims of fraud.
Ms. Chapman responded in the negative.
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the one zero fiscal note
from Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSHB 292(L&C) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 292(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1 (CED).
ADJOURNMENT
3:31:26 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:31 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB292 Explanation of Changes from Version A to Version M.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| HB292 Legal Opinion.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| HB292 Sectional 2.24.12.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| Memo re Contracts Clause Issue.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| HB292 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| Memo re Single Subject rule.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| Westlaw Croft v. Parnell.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 359 - LOS.PDF |
HFIN 4/2/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 359 |
| HB359 Amendments Gara 1-2.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 359 |