Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/27/2019 10:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 27, 2019
10:00 a.m.
10:00:12 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 10:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
John Skidmore, Director, Criminal Division, Department of
Law.
SUMMARY
HB 20 SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act requiring law enforcement agencies to send
sexual assault examination kits for testing within six
months after collection; and providing for an
effective date."
10:00:49 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 20, Work Draft 31-LS0253\C (Radford,
4/26/19). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
10:03:08 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked about the inflation proofing change
in the committee substitute (CS).
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, was present to review the (CS). He relayed that the CS
eliminated the inflation proofing adjustment enacted in SB
91-Omnibus Crim Law & Procedure; Corrections [CHAPTER 36
SLA 16 - 07/11/2016]. He underlined that a monetary
threshold determined the difference between a misdemeanor
or felony level offense regarding property crime. He
delineated that historically, the legislature adjusted the
monetary levels. The level was adjusted in 2015 with the
passage of SB 64 Omnibus Crime/Corrections/Recidivism Bill
[CHAPTER 83 SLA 14, Adopted on 07/16/2014] after
significant debate. He remarked that when the level was
adjusted again the following year in SB 91 the topic was
heavily debated. The legislature addressed the threshold
again in SB 54- Crimes; Sentencing; Probation; Parole
[CHAPTER 1 4SSLA 17 - 11/26/2017]. He explained that
retaining the inflation adjustment meant the legislature
would abdicate its role in changing the threshold for a
misdemeanor and felony level offense. The Alaska Judicial
Council would announce any changes in the threshold based
on inflation information provided by the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) every
five years. He noted that when SB 91 was enacted the
Department of Law (DOL) had addressed its concerns with the
approach in a SB 91 bill review letter [copy not on file]
to the legislature. The SB 91 inflation adjustment
provisions had not yet been implemented due to an effective
date of 2020. The CS eliminated the inflation adjustment
approach.
10:05:39 AM
Mr. Skidmore noted that Sections 14 through 21 of the CS
related to the inflation adjustment. He continued with
Section 22 on page 13 of the legislation that addressed the
crime of escape in the third degree. He elaborated that the
provisions criminalized the conduct of tampering with an
electronic monitoring (EM) device while under official
detention for a misdemeanor. He offered that official
detention occurred subsequent to a conviction and was
addressed in subsection (3). He indicated that subsection
(4) addressed EM tampering under pretrial release, which
adjusted the crime to escape in the third degree, which was
a Class C felony; it would increase jail time from 0 to up
to 30 days for removing an electronic device.
Representative Josephson asked if the department wanted a
similar provision relative to the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) for escape in the second degree. He
asked whether there had been two provisions in SB 32-
Crimes; Sentencing; Ment. Illness; Evidence that involved
similar concepts. Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative.
He read the following from Section 22, lines 11 through 14
subparagraph (B):
(B)without prior authorization, leaves one's residence
or other place designated by the commissioner of
corrections or the commissioner of health and social
services for service by electronic monitoring;
Mr. Skidmore reported that DHSS was referenced because it
housed the Division of Juvenile Justice. The provisions for
the Department of Corrections applied to adults and the
provisions for DHSS applied to juveniles. He indicated that
Representative Josephson pointed to an omission that DOL
discovered in AS 11.56.310 related to escape in the second
degree, that had a provision for DOC but not for juveniles
under DHSS. The dual provision was only included in SB 32.
10:09:24 AM
Representative Carpenter asked if a child detained under EM
that cut off their ankle monitor would be charged with a
Class C felony. Mr. Skidmore replied in the affirmative.
The difference was that the juvenile would be dealt with in
the juvenile court and it was not public information. The
sanctions imposed between the juvenile courts and the adult
courts were dramatically different.
10:10:21 AM
Mr. Skidmore reviewed Sections 23 and 24 related to the
crime of failure to appear and indicated that the CS
returned the discretion to the courts. He detailed that
prior to SB 91, if someone failed to appear to any type of
court hearing the person could be charged with the crime of
failure to appear. The failure to appear charge depended on
whether the crime the offender committed was a felony or
misdemeanor. A felony failure to appear was a Class C
felony and a misdemeanor failure to appear was a Class C
misdemeanor. Previously, when individuals failed to show
for certain hearings, judges would frequently issue a bench
warrant without officially entering it into the system for
a couple of days - the defense had that amount of time to
get their client to appear. However, in some instances the
judge would issue the warrant immediately. In SB 91, the
concept of a 30-day grace period had been introduced unless
the prosecutor could prove that the reason the defendant
failed to show up was to avoid prosecution. The numbers
were not dramatic in terms of the number of prosecutions
for failure to appear, which was 137 in 2015. After the
grace period went into effect the number of cases dropped
to 30, which was about 107 fewer cases. The department
found that it became much more difficult to prosecute the
cases. He furthered that when someone failed to appear it
was not just about the hearing failing to go forward, there
were also collateral consequences. He detailed that it was
a waste of time for the victims, witnesses, police
officers, court employees, etc. who disrupted their lives,
jobs etc. to show up for court. The CS returned the bench
warrant discretion to the courts.
10:14:37 AM
Mr. Skidmore moved to Section 25 related to the state's
drug laws. He elucidated that 3 major changes had taken
place. The first provision dealt with possession crimes.
Prior to SB 91, possession of controlled substances was a
Class C felony with a sentencing range of zero to two
years. Subsequent to SB 91, the crimes had been reduced to
a Class A misdemeanor with a sentencing range of zero for a
first or second offense. The third offense authorized some
active jail time. Generally, sanctions were ratcheted up as
offences continued. The department had done approximately
1,000 drug prosecutions prior to SB 91 - that number had
decreased to around 300 after the bill passed. He observed
that as a result, fewer offenders were sent to drug
treatment programs. Drug distribution crimes were reduced
in SB 91. Prior to SB 91 the sentences ranged from
unclassified felony, Class A felony, to Class B felony.
After SB 91, the unclassified sentences had been left in
place, but classed felonies were reduced downwards. In
addition, a new concept considering the quantity of drugs
determined whether it was considered a low or high level
distribution. He noted that the distribution changes had
substantially disturbed the framework that was
established in prior law. He mentioned an appellate court
case called Knight [Knight v. State, 1993] that set out all
the factors concerning drug distribution.
10:18:11 AM
Mr. Skidmore read from page 7 of the bill review letter
related to the Knight case:
Within any class of controlled substance, what
constitutes an unusually small or large quantity
may vary from case to case, depending on variables
such as the precise nature of the substance and the
form in which it is possessed, the relative purity of
the substance, its commercial value at the time of
the offense, and the relative availability or
scarcity of the substance in the community where the
crime is committed. Variations may also occur
over time: what amounted to a typical controlled
substance transaction ten years ago might be an
exceptional one today. These variables do not
lend themselves to an inflexible rule of general
application, and they render it both undesirable and
wholly impractical to treat the question of what
constitutes a "large" or "small" quantity . . . as an
abstract question of law. The question must instead be
resolved by the sentencing court as a factual matter,
based on the totality of the evidence in the case and
on the court's discretion, as informed by the
totality of its experience.
Knight v.State, 855 P.2d 1347, 1349-50 (Alaska Ct.
App. 1993
10:19:13 AM
Mr. Skidmore noted that the letter described the elegance
of the former review system. He pointed to Sections 25
through 27 and reported that the CS returned the
distribution crimes to pre-SB 91 levels. He cautioned
members related to reviewing the bill sections. He informed
the committee that there were elements that seemed to be
repeated and it was critical to read the repealers while
reading the legislation. He reviewed the third change made
in the drug laws. He voiced that previous law included
sections addressing methamphetamine distribution. He
offered that meth production was extremely hazardous and
required specialized HAZMAT [hazardous materials] cleanup.
The offenses were serious and the laws that were enacted
helped to combat the problem. Unfortunately, meth was now
imported to Alaska primarily from Mexico. He communicated
that the CS returned the meth provisions in statute to
ensure that meth manufacturing would never raise its ugly
head again in Alaska.
10:21:34 AM
Representative Josephson liked the restoration of the drug
code with one concern. He recalled his alarm when
possession of heroin with no intention to distribute became
a Class A misdemeanor not subject to jail under SB 91. He
asked that if possession was returned to a Class C felony
but conditions mandating substance abuse treatment were
imposed under a suspended entry of judgment (SEJ), what
would assure him that the state was providing alternatives
other than imposing jailtime. He would be more comfortable
restoring the possession statutes with assurances that
conditions under an SEJ would always be imposed. Mr.
Skidmore affirmed that possession crimes were returned to
Class C felonies in the CS. He communicated that he favored
SEJ and it was one of the concepts from SB 91 that remained
in the CS and was not proposed for repeal. He specified
that an SEJ imposed conditions on a conviction for a person
who pleaded guilty. If the offender followed the conditions
the case would be dismissed, the record would not reflect
that the individual was ever convicted. He characterized
SEJ as a new tool available that he hoped prosecutors
could take better advantage of in possession cases.
10:25:02 AM
Mr. Skidmore indicated that the remaining sections up to
Section 32 dealt with drug offenses. The sections returned
drug offenses to pre-SB 91 laws. He reviewed Section 33 on
page 24 related to Class B felony sentencing. The section
returned Class B felony sentencing back to what it had been
prior to SB 91. He elaborated that a first offense was
returned to a one to three year presumptive sentence. A
second offense was returned to a sentence of two to seven
years and the third offense was returned to 6 to 10 years.
He believed that Class B felonies were more serious than
Class C felonies, yet currently the sentences (zero to two
years) were the same. The change would apply to
strangulation as in the Justin Schneider case. He commented
that currently any degree of strangulation would be treated
the same as a Class C felony and was subject to a sentence
of zero to two years. The CS increased the sentence to one
to three years and applied additional sentencing if prior
felonies were involved.
10:27:02 AM
Mr. Skidmore furthered that Section 34 contained conforming
language related to drug laws. He noted that Section 35
through 38 were existing sections. Section 39 contained a
change that created an efficiency for felony cases. He
elucidated that prosecutors had to show prior criminal
convictions when indicting felony cases. A wrap sheet (a
type of print out) was sufficient for Driving Under the
Influence (DUI) offences but other felonies required a
certified copy of the judgement by the time a case went to
trial. He concluded that Section 40 included changes to
repealers that he was unable to review due to time
contraints.
Representative Josephson asked to hear Mr. Skidmore again
after floor.
HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson RECESSED the meeting to a call of the chair
[note: the meeting never reconvened].
RECESSED
10:29:00 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB20 CS WORKDRAFT FIN vC.pdf |
HFIN 4/27/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 20 |