Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/02/2013 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB22 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 73 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 2, 2013
9:04 a.m.
9:04:52 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alternate
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
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.
SUMMARY
HB 73 CRIMES; VICTIMS; CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
HB 73 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 21(FIN am(efd fld)
OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION TAX
CSSB 21(FIN am(efd fld)was SCHEDULED but not
HEARD.
CSSB 22(FIN)
CRIMES; VICTIMS; CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
SB 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 22(FIN)
"An Act relating to the commencement of actions for
felony sex trafficking and felony human trafficking;
relating to the crime of sexual assault; relating to
the crime of unlawful contact; relating to forfeiture
for certain crimes involving prostitution; relating to
the time in which to commence certain prosecutions;
relating to release in a prosecution for stalking or a
crime involving domestic violence or for violation of
a condition of release in connection with a crime
involving domestic violence; relating to interception
of private communications for certain sex trafficking
or human trafficking offenses; relating to use of
evidence of sexual conduct concerning victims of
certain crimes; relating to consideration at
sentencing of the effect of a crime on the victim;
relating to the time to make an application for credit
for time served in a treatment program or while in
other custody; relating to suspending imposition of
sentence for sex trafficking; relating to consecutive
sentences for convictions of certain crimes involving
child pornography or indecent materials to minors;
relating to the referral of sexual felonies to a
three-judge panel; relating to the definition of
'sexual felony' for sentencing and probation for
conviction of certain crimes; relating to the
definition of 'sex offense' regarding sex offender
registration; relating to the definition of 'victim
counseling centers' for disclosure of certain
communications concerning sexual assault or domestic
violence; relating to violent crimes compensation;
relating to certain information in retention election
of judges concerning sentencing of persons convicted
of felonies; relating to remission of sentences for
certain sexual felony offenders; relating to forms for
sexual assault, stalking, and domestic violence
protective orders; relating to the subpoena power of
the attorney general in cases involving the use of an
Internet service account; relating to reasonable
efforts in child-in-need-of-aid cases involving sexual
abuse or sex offender registration; relating to
mandatory reporting by athletic coaches of child abuse
or neglect; making conforming amendments; amending
Rules 16, 32.1(b)(1), and 32.2(a), Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and Rules 404(a) and (b), Alaska
Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective
date."
9:05:27 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze announced that the companion bill for HB
73, SB 22, would be the legislative vehicle used by the
house going forward.
MICHAEL GERAGHTY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
provided an overview of SB 22. He stated that the important
intent of the legislation was the reduction of sexual
assault, domestic violence, and sexual abuse of children in
the state. Senate Bill 22 would reverse the effect of a
recent decision by the Alaska Court of Appeals that had
misinterpreted the legislative intent in adopting increased
ranges of sentences for persons convicted of sex felonies.
The decision by the court of appeals had allowed for more
latitude for judges to refer the defense to a three judge
sentencing review panel, which the department believed was
inconsistent with what the legislature had intended when it
amended the law in 2006. The bill also addressed gaps in
sexual assault statutes to prohibit probation and parole
officers from having sexual relations with people on
probation and parole. The legislation would make changes in
criminal procedures to protect victims of sexual assault,
sexual abuse and domestic violence; for example, a hearing
before a judicial officer would be required before a person
arrested for a bail violation for domestic violence crime
could be released. Additionally, the bill broadened the
protection for victims from the use of evidence of past and
future sexual conduct. The bill would give protection of
confidential communications between victims of sexual
assault and domestic violence, and counselors who worked on
United States military bases or were contracted by the U.S.
military.
9:09:47 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze requested for a moment of silence for the
sacrifice made by law enforcement public servants.
Attorney General Geraghty read a statement from Joseph
Masters, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety:
I regret that I am not able to personally address the
House Finance Committee today to introduce this very
important legislation. The Department of Public Safety
and indeed the State of Alaska experienced a tragic
loss over the weekend with the crash of Helo-1, and
the resulting loss of three lives. Our thoughts and
prayers are with the families of pilot Mel Nading,
trooper Tage Toll and their rescued passenger Carl
Ober.
Attorney General Geraghty requested on behalf of
Commissioner Masters a moment of silence for the victims of
the crash.
9:13:51 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about the court case decision that
had resulted in the optional transfer of sentencing to a
three-judge panel.
Attorney General Geraghty deferred the question to Anne
Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law. He
believed that the courts had misinterpreted the intent of
the initial legislation.
Representative Wilson asked if there were statistics
available regarding the problem that the bill was trying to
fix.
Attorney General Geraghty said that the statistics
indicated that sexual assault and domestic violence were
rampant in the state and that the statistics in the state
far exceeded the national average in alarming respects. He
understood that the problem would not be eradicated by the
passage of one law but the process was evolving; the
legislation was to supplement and complement existing law.
9:17:50 AM
Representative Wilson thought that the issue relating to
probation officers should be included in the employee
contract. She was interested in more statistics that
illustrated how the legislation would be effective.
Attorney General Geraghty would be happy to provide more
detail in writing. He shared that a probation officer could
be fired for misconduct, but that criminal charges should
also be filed, which was the gap was in the criminal
statute. He deferred further questions to Anne Carpeneti.
9:20:09 AM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
provided differences between HB 73 and SB 22:
CSHB 73(JUD) and CSSB 22(FIN) are essentially the
same, but with two exceptions:
• CSHB 73(JUD) added two sections (30 and 31) which
make conforming amendments to the law that provides a
savings clause in our adoption code. In that code, a
victim of sexual abuse or incest that becomes pregnant
as a result of the crime may initiate proceedings to
terminate the parental rights of the perpetrator. If
they do so, the law "saves" other remedies for them
against the perpetrator. The legislature neglected to
specifically include victims of sexual abuse in the
savings clause. The additions specify that victims or
sexual assault are protected, too.
• Both bills amend Rule 16(b), Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, by limiting the copying and
distribution of child pornography that is attendant on
the discovery process in a criminal prosecution. CSHB
73(JUD) allows the court to make arrangements to send
the materials to experts both in and outside the state
for examination. CSSB 22(FIN) would only allow the
material to be sent to an expert out of state.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that SB 22 differed from prior bills
related to similar topics because it maintained a focus on
criminal procedure changes in the law, rather than
substantive changes, with the exception of making it a
crime for a probation or parole officer to engage in sexual
conduct with a person on probation or parole. It would be a
Class C felony for a probation or parole officer to engage
in sexual penetration with a person on probation or parole,
and a Class A misdemeanor for that person to engage in
sexual contact with a person on probation or parole.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if consent was an issue.
Ms. Carpeneti replied in the negative; it was the act
itself that was a crime.
9:23:45 AM
Representative Wilson asked why the bill related
specifically to parole officers.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the section applied to adult
victims as well as minors. She explained that the current
law provided that consent was a non-issue in relation to
sexual abuse of a minor, because children are unable to
consent to sexual relationships. The current law only
prohibits consensual sexual relations in certain
circumstances; one if it was a police officer, another if
it was a correctional officer. The bill addressed the
position of control that a probation officer has over adult
parolees.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the people singled out in
the legislation were chosen because they were in
positions of trust.
Ms. Carpeneti referred to the Satch Carlson case. Gordon
"Satch" Carlson, an English, journalism and film teacher,
and columnist for the Anchorage Daily News and AutoWeek in
the 1980s faced three felony criminal charges in August
1989 involving his sexual relationship with a 17-year-old
Bartlett senior that could have sent him to prison for
eight years. At least four female students made allegations
about Carlson, but only one student's allegations resulted
in charges. The charges were dismissed in January 1990
because the student was above the age of 16, the age of
legal consent in Alaska; the judge also found that a law
raising the age of consent to 18 in cases in which a child
is entrusted to an adult's care "by authority of law"
applied to court-ordered guardians, but not to teachers.
The student sued Carlson in civil court in 1991. In
reaction to the Satch Carlson case, the Alaska Legislature
passed the so-called "Satch Carlson law," making sex
between an adult and any person under age 18 illegal if the
adult occupied a position of authority over the minor.
RICHARD SVOBODNY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, affirmed the case had changed
Alaska law.
Ms. Carpeneti relayed that generally, for adults, the law
required lack of consent in order for sexual assault to be
a crime. The bill would allow victims of sex-trafficking
and human trafficking to bring a civil action for damages
at any time regardless of the elapsed time from the
commission of the crime. It allowed the state to prosecute
a person for felony sex-trafficking, distribution of child
pornography and felony human trafficking regardless of the
time elapsed from the commission of the offense. The bill
would make it a crime for an offender to contact a witness
from prison provided non-contact had been ordered by a
judge.
Ms. Carpeneti discussed Section 10:
Section 10 allows the state to request forfeiture of
property of a patron of a prostitute or the prostitute
if the property was used to institute, aid, or
facilitate prostitution, or was received or derived
from prostitution. It makes the forfeiture
discretionary with the court and requires the
defendant to be convicted before the property may be
forfeited.
9:29:56 AM
Ms. Carpeneti moved to Sections 12 and 13:
Sections 12 and 13 allow the court the discretion, in
releasing on bail a person in connection with a crime
involving domestic violence or stalking, to require
the defendant to participate in electronic monitoring
by a global positioning device or similar technology
if it meets guidelines adopted by the Department of
Corrections in consultation with the Department of
Public Safety.
Representative Holmes asked for verification that the
section related to people out of jail.
Ms. Carpeneti replied the requirements would be related to
bail conditions.
Representative Holmes wanted to ensure that the law would
not be found unconstitutional.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that similar laws had not been found
unconstitutional in any other state.
9:32:37 AM
Representative Thompson asked whether the limitations of
where the offender could travel could inadvertently
highlight the location of the victim.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the bill would require DOC and
DPS to work out and adopt guidelines.
Representative Thompson thought developing the guidelines
would be difficult.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that it was a good idea to monitor
offenders, but she agreed that the state did not want to
put victims in increased danger.
Representative Thompson wondered if the guideline details
would be included in regulation.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the technology was changing so
quickly that it would be prudent to leave some latitude for
the court and the people that would administer the program
to change according the developments in the field.
Representative Thompson though that the legislature would
be addressing the issue in the future.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that SB 22 had yet to go through the
House Judiciary Committee, but that it was expected to do
so.
9:35:24 AM
Representative Costello asked if the definition of stalking
was different than the definition of harassment.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that stalking was when a person
knowingly engaged in a course of conduct that recklessly
placed another person in fear of death or physical injury,
or in fear of death or physical injury of a family member.
Representative Costello asked if the definition for
harassment was different.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that harassment did not mean
following a person and putting them in fear of death or
physical injury.
Mr. Svobodny added that harassment included repeated
telephone calls, offensive physical contact and disorderly
conduct. He noted that harassment was a lesser misdemeanor
offence defined by annoying behavior.
Representative Costello understood that a judicial officer
could order counseling and an ankle bracelet prior to the
resolution of a case.
Ms. Carpeneti replied in the affirmative. She stated that
the judicial officer would have the authority to set
various conditions of release in cases where a person had
been charged with a crime and a probable cause
determination had been made by the judicial officer. She
continued to Section 14:
Section 14 requires that a person arrested for a
violation of a condition of release in connection with
a domestic violence crime appear before a judge in
person or by telephone before release from custody.
Ms. Carpeneti read Section 15:
Section 15 authorizes the attorney general to make a
written application to a court for an order allowing
interception of the private communications of a person
that may provide evidence that the person is
committing or planning to commit sex trafficking in
the first or second degree, or human trafficking in
the first degree. Sex trafficking and human
trafficking are crimes that would require cooperation
among perpetrators. Interception of the communications
of a person under these circumstances would facilitate
the investigation of these crimes.
Representative Holmes noted that sex trafficking in the
Second degree was a Class B felony, whereas everything else
on the list was a Class A or Unclassified Felony. She
wondered the intention had been to include various levels
of felonies in the legislation.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the rationale for including sex
trafficking in the Second degree was because it generally
included telephone calls and communication among people.
She added that it was high standard to order wire-tapping;
it was expensive to carry out and was not done often.
9:40:37 AM
Mr. Svobodny added that if a police officer could not get a
search warrant for wire-tapping; the request would first
have to be made to the attorney general who would review
the need for the tap, then it would be sent before a judge
for approval. Wire-tapping required a significant amount of
resources because it had to be constantly monitored to stop
the capture of non-criminal activity. The number of wire-
taps were required to be reported to the federal government
annually; the amount had been zero over the last 20 years.
Representative Edgmon asked if there was existing law that
differentiated between human trafficking and sexual
trafficking.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that there were separate statutes
that addressed human and sex trafficking.
9:42:33 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman noted that under current statute parolees
were required to submit to regular polygraph examinations.
He asked whether the parolee could be forced to cover the
cost of the exam.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that in crafting the legislation the
department wanted to make sure that the responsibility for
payment of the monitoring would be left up to the court.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested that his staff take note about
marking it in the courts budget for the following year.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked if the issue could be addressed in
the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed.
Ms. Carpeneti spoke to Section 16 of the legislation:
Section 16 expands the protection of a victim of
sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, and unlawful
exploitation of minor by excluding evidence of the
victim's sexual conduct both before and after the
person was victimized. Current law provides this
protection for evidence of sexual conduct before the
offense charged. This rule is commonly referred to as
the rape shield law, and the purpose is to exclude
evidence of the victim's private sexual conduct unless
the proponent has a valid evidentiary reason for its
admission. Section 16 also requires the defendant to
make the request to admit this evidence at least five
days before trial, unless the request is based on
information learned after the deadline or otherwise
for good cause.
Co-Chair Stoltze turned the gavel over to Co-Chair
Austerman.
9:45:22 AM
Ms. Carpeneti moved to Sections 17 and 18:
Section 17 requires a defendant claiming credit for
time spent in a treatment program as a condition of
bail release to file written notice 10 days before the
sentencing hearing on that offense. The notice must
include the number of days the person is claiming. A
court may not consider a request for credit made more
than 90 days after the deadline except for good cause.
Section 17 also requires a person to make a request
for credit for time spent in a treatment program
pending appeal within 90 days after the case is
returned to the trial court following appeal. A court
may not consider a request for credit after the
deadline except for good cause.
Section 18 requires a defendant claiming credit for
time spent in a treatment program as a condition of
probation or a condition of bail release in connection
with a petition to revoke probation to file notice of
the request 10 days before the disposition hearing on
the petition. The notice must include the number of
requested days of credit. A court may not consider a
request for credit made more than 90 days after the
deadline except for good cause.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about Section 16 as it related to
sexual conduct victimization. He asked if there was
specific language in the section that prohibited an
attorney from delving into the victim's prior sexual
conduct.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that it was in current law. She
stated that the procedure in the rape shield protection was
that a defense attorney should raise the issue in the
evidence that they wanted to have introduced, outside the
presence of the jury, so that the judge could weigh the
relevance of the evidence before it was introduced at
trial. She noted that sometimes information was relevant
and needed to be introduced.
9:48:52 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman queried where the changes were located in
Section 16.
Ms. Carpeneti pointed to Line 18 of page 9 of the
legislation which said:
evidence of the [COMPLAINING WITNESS'PREVIOUS] sexual
conduct of the complaining witness, occurring either
before or after the offense charged, may not be
admitted nor may reference be made to it in the
presence of the jury except as provided in this
section.
Representative Wilson looked at Section 17. She wondered if
there were statistics showing that the treatment programs
worked.
Mr. Svobodny answered that through case law in the state
people got credit for time in jail and if they were in a
program that the court called the functional equivalent of
incarceration. If a person was in an alcohol rehabilitation
program, in a locked facility, they would get credit for
the time there. The provision stated that 10 day notice had
to be given to the court prior to sentencing that requested
the credit. He stressed that the people who ran the
programs were striving for scientific based analysis
related to the programs' success.
Representative Wilson wondered if it cost more to
rehabilitate or incarcerate an offender. She wondered who
was paying for the rehabilitation programs.
Mr. Svobodny replied that the rehabilitation programs would
cost less than incarceration.
Representative Wilson asserted that the state paid for the
rehabilitation programs. She asked for more information on
the cost to the state.
9:53:19 AM
Ms. Carpeneti turned to Section 19:
Section 19 makes a person convicted of sex trafficking
ineligible for a suspended imposition of sentence.
Ms. Carpeneti continued to Section 20:
Sections 20 requires the court in sentencing a person
convicted of two or more crimes of distribution of
child pornography, possession of child pornography, or
distribution of indecent material to minors to give
some consecutive time for each crime or attempted or
solicited crime for which the defendant is being
sentenced.
Co-Chair Stoltze resumed control of the gavel.
Representative Thompson requested further explanation of
the language in Section 21, line 28:
(2) a history free of unprosecuted, undocumented, or
undetected sexual offenses.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the court of appeals ruling on
Collins v. State had created two non-statutory mitigating
factors that would justify a person's sentence to be
transferred from the court to a three-judge panel. Based on
legislative intent in 2006, when the legislature had raised
the sentencing ranges for most sexual felonies, the
findings adopted by the Senate stated that people who
committed sexual felonies were difficult to treat and
tended to reoffend at a high rate. Additionally, the
finding stated that generally, people who committed sex
felonies had victimized many people before they had been
reported and prosecuted. Furthermore, many sexual offenders
began crimes early in life and the harm that they caused
their victims was devastating. The court had taken from the
findings that the legislative intent was that a person with
less than extraordinary prospects for rehabilitation should
be transferred to a three-judge panel. The department did
not believe the legislative intent from 2006 justified the
court ruling. She noted that it would be difficult to
disprove "a history free of unprosecuted, undocumented, or
undetected sexual offenses" because the offense would have
been undetected.
9:58:14 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman asserted that the legislative intent in
2006 was based on the fact that convicted sexual offenders
had a 92 percent recidivism rate, only 22 to 24 percent of
all sexual offenses were reported, and every sexual
offender had 12 to 14 offenses before being caught. He
stressed that the intent was to make sure that offenders
went to jail for the safety of the rest of society.
Ms. Carpeneti continued to Section 23:
Section 23 corrects an error in the definition of
sexual felony by including the crimes of sex
trafficking in the first degree and online enticement
of a minor in the definition. The term is used in AS
12.55.125(i), which adopts higher sentencing ranges
for most sex felonies, including sex trafficking in
the first degree and online enticement of a minor.
Ms. Carpeneti turned to Section 24:
Section 24 adds the felony of being a patron of a
prostitute who is under 18 years of age in violation
of AS 11.66.100 to those crimes that require
registration as a sex offender, if the patron is 18
years or older and at least three years older than the
prostitute. It also corrects a reference to the crime
of sex trafficking in the first degree and the third
degree in the sex offender law.
Ms. Carpeneti continued to Sections 25 and 26:
Sections 25 and 26 make conforming amendments to the
warning on sexual assault, stalking, and domestic
violence protective orders. Certain violations of
these protective orders are a class A misdemeanor
under AS 11.56.740. The maximum fine for a class A
misdemeanor has been raised to $10,000 under AS
12.55.035. Sections 25 and 26 update the warning to
describe the maximum fine under current law.
Ms. Carpeneti moved to Section 27:
Section 27 adds to the definition of victim counseling
centers to include victim counseling centers operated
by or contracted by a branch of the armed forces of
the United States. The effect of this change is to
extend the privilege for confidential communications
between a victim of sexual assault or domestic
violence and their counselors to counseling
organizations that provide services to victims
connected with the military.
10:02:02 AM
Representative Thompson wondered what a military contract
entailed.
Ms. Carpeneti understood that some military bases
contracted out for base counselors.
Ms. Carpeneti resumed the sectional analysis:
Section 28 amends the law addressing persons who are
eligible for violent crimes compensation to include
victims of sex trafficking, human trafficking, and
unlawful exploitation of a minor.
Sections 29, 39, and 40 strengthen and make more
explicit statutes and court rules that require a court
to consider the impact of the crime on the victim.
Section 39 requires the presentence report to include
a victim impact statement or an explanation of why the
victim or victim's representative could not be
interviewed. Section 40 requires the court to take the
victim's impact statement into account when preparing
the sentencing report and for other purposes. Section
29 requires the Alaska Judicial Council to include
information about a judge's consideration of victims
when imposing sentence in a felony case with other
information about the judge in connection with a
retention election.
Ms. Carpeneti explained that in the house version of the
bill the House Judiciary Committee had added two sections:
30 and 31. The section addressed the state's adoption law
which contained a savings clause that provided that if a
victim of sexual assault or abuse had a child as a result
of the crime the victim could sue to terminate the parental
rights of the perpetrator. The savings clause was a civil
provision that provided that if the victim had filed a
cause of action to terminate the parental rights of the
perpetrator, then the victim would also retain other
remedies for damages. The two sections added sexual assault
to the savings clause and then defined sexual assault. The
addition of sexual assault in the savings clause was
something that had needed to be fixed.
Ms. Carpeneti continued with the sectional analysis:
Section 30 provides that a person convicted of an
unclassified or class A sexual felony is not eligible
for mandatory parole (also called good time).
10:06:18 AM
Sections 31 -- 34 address the procedure for a law
enforcement officer to obtain an administrative
subpoena for the business records of an Internet
service provider. These subpoenas may be issued in the
investigation of the crimes of online enticement of a
minor, unlawful exploitation of a minor, distribution
of child pornography, possession of child pornography,
and distribution of indecent material to a minor. The
amendments allow the attorney general to designate the
deputy attorney general for the civil division or the
criminal division to evaluate applications for the
subpoena, in addition to the attorney general. The
investigation of these cases often requires a prompt
response to a request for a subpoena, and having two
attorneys who may approve them will assist law
enforcement in their investigations.
Section 35 adds to the circumstances that allow a
court to decide that reasonable efforts by the Office
of Children's Services to reunite a child who is in an
out-of-home placement with the child's family are not
required. It provides that the court may make this
determination if it finds by clear and convincing
evidence that the parent or guardian has committed
sexual abuse against the child or another child of the
parent or guardian, or that the parent or guardian is
registered or required to register as a sex offender
or child kidnapper.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the issue was currently
discretionary.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that it was not specified in current
law. The section would add the provisions of whether the
parent or guardian had abused a child or was a registered
sex offender.
Co-Chair Stoltze understood that under current law the
Office of Children's Services was required to make best
efforts to reunite a child in out-of-home placement with
the child's family.
Ms. Carpeneti replied in the affirmative.
Representative Thompson asked whether the language of AS
12.63 was too broad because it included everyone who had
ever had to register and not just the most egregious
offenders.
Ms. Carpeneti noted that it was discretionary. The
department would have to ask for the judge to excuse them
from best efforts and then the judge would use their own
discretion. If the person were no longer on the registry it
would not apply.
10:11:38 AM
Representative Costello referred to a presentation from the
Department of Public Safety in the year prior. During the
presentation Commissioner Masters had relayed that the
state did not comply with all of the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) federal
requirements for registration. She referred to a letter she
had received from the commissioner that explained that
there were offenses under Alaska law that did not currently
require registration under AS 12.62 but that would be
required under federal law; human trafficking in the First
degree if the victim was under 18 years old, human
trafficking in the Second degree if the victim was under
the age of 18 years old, and involving sexual contact. In
addition, federal offenses that were not currently included
in the state's requirement for the registry included: sex
trafficking of children, video voyeurism of a minor,
offenses resulting in death, and misleading domain names on
the internet. She added that state did not require school
information for the sex offender registry, which could
expose high school students attending college classes to
offenders.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the bill would add felony
patrons of child prostitutes to the sex offender
requirement. She believed that sex trafficking offenses
were included in the state's sex offender registration. She
requested a copy of commissioner's letter and offered to
reply specifically to any questions the letter raised at a
later date.
Representative Costello said she would provide a copy of
the letter to the committee and the department.
Representative Wilson asked if the provision in Section 35
could open the courts up to liability.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the bill would allow the courts
to make the best decision possible with the information
available. She said that the courts were protected by
immunity for judicial acts.
Representative Wilson did not understand why the provision
was discretionary and not mandatory.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the section would give the
courts the discretion to excuse the department from trying
to make best efforts to reunite the child with a parent or
guardian who refused to address behavior that could be
damaging to the child.
10:16:24 AM
Ms. Carpeneti continued with the sectional analysis:
Sections 36 and 37 add athletic coaches to the persons
who are required to report to authorities if the
person has reasonable cause to believe that a child
has suffered harm from child abuse or neglect.
Athletic coach is defined in Section 37 to include
paid leaders of a sports team and their assistants.
Section 38 adopts a court rule that limits the
publication of child pornography that occurs during
the discovery process in a prosecution for unlawful
exploitation of a minor. Because every viewing of
child pornography is an additional harm to the victim,
this section requires the defendant and the
defendant's attorney to view the material where it is
stored. If a defendant is not represented, it requires
the court to arrange for the defendant to be
supervised while viewing the material. If the
defendant requests that an expert witness out of state
view the material, it requires the court to arrange to
send the material directly to the expert.
Ms. Carpeneti pointed out that SB 22 would only allow the
materials to be copied and sent to an expert witness
outside the state. The house version extended the court's
ability to copy the material and send it to an expert
witness both inside and outside the state.
Representative Thompson expressed concern with copying and
sending the information outside the state. He noted that an
expert witness was not an officer of the court.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that expert witnesses needed special
equipment to view the material which would burden the
expert to bring their equipment to the material.
Mr. Svobodny discussed an Adam Walsh Act. He said that the
defense could argue that they could choose the expert that
they wanted from wherever they wanted. He asserted that the
client had the right to have the material examined by the
person of their choice. He said that it was a cost question
and that it was expensive to send materials out of state.
10:20:58 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked the department to finish the
sectional analysis at a later date.
SB 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 21(FIN) am(efd fld)
"An Act relating to the interest rate applicable to
certain amounts due for fees, taxes, and payments made
and property delivered to the Department of Revenue;
providing a tax credit against the corporation income
tax for qualified oil and gas service industry
expenditures; relating to the oil and gas production
tax rate; relating to gas used in the state; relating
to monthly installment payments of the oil and gas
production tax; relating to oil and gas production tax
credits for certain losses and expenditures; relating
to oil and gas production tax credit certificates;
relating to nontransferable tax credits based on
production; relating to the oil and gas tax credit
fund; relating to annual statements by producers and
explorers; establishing the Oil and Gas
Competitiveness Review Board; and making conforming
amendments."
CSSB 21(FIN am(efd fld)was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 73
"An Act relating to the commencement of actions for
felony sex trafficking and felony human trafficking;
relating to the crime of sexual assault; relating to
the crime of unlawful contact; relating to forfeiture
for certain crimes involving prostitution; relating to
the time in which to commence certain prosecutions;
relating to release for violation of a condition of
release in connection with a crime involving domestic
violence; relating to interception of private
communications for certain sex trafficking or human
trafficking offenses; relating to use of evidence of
sexual conduct concerning victims of certain crimes;
relating to procedures for granting immunity to a
witness in a criminal proceeding; relating to
consideration at sentencing of the effect of a crime
on the victim; relating to the time to make an
application for credit for time served in detention in
a treatment program or while in other custody;
relating to suspending imposition of sentence for sex
trafficking; relating to consecutive sentences for
convictions of certain crimes involving child
pornography or indecent materials to minors; relating
to the referral of sexual felonies to a three-judge
panel; relating to the definition of 'sexual felony'
for sentencing and probation for conviction of certain
crimes; relating to the definition of "sex offense"
regarding sex offender registration; relating to
protective orders for stalking and sexual assault and
for a crime involving domestic violence; relating to
the definition of 'victim counseling centers' for
disclosure of certain communications concerning sexual
assault or domestic violence; relating to violent
crimes compensation; relating to certain information
in retention election of judges concerning sentencing
of persons convicted of felonies; relating to
remission of sentences for certain sexual felony
offenders; relating to the subpoena power of the
attorney general in cases involving the use of an
Internet service account; relating to reasonable
efforts in child-in-need-of-aid cases involving sexual
abuse or sex offender registration; relating to
mandatory reporting by athletic coaches of child abuse
or neglect; making conforming amendments; amending
Rules 16, 32.1(b)(1), and 32.2(a), Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Rule 404(b), Alaska Rules of
Evidence, and Rule 216, Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
HB 73 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
ADJOURNMENT
10:21:29 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:21 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 73 Changes JUD.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 73 |
| HB 73 Comparison to CSSB 22 FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 73 SB 22 |
| HB 73 Sectional Analysis JUD.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 73 |
| HB 73 Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 73 |
| SB 22 support.PDF |
HFIN 4/2/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 CSSB 22(FIN) Sectional description.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 - CSSB22(FIN) -l Letters of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 -- CSSB 22(FIN) -- differences from HB 73.doc |
HFIN 4/2/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 73 SB 22 |
| SB 22 - CSSB22 (FIN) highlights.doc |
HFIN 4/2/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 (FIN).ACLU Review.2013-04-03.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 22 |