Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/1999 01:55 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
April 26, 1999
1:55 P.M.
TAPE HFC 99 - 103, Side 1
TAPE HFC 99 - 103, Side 2
TAPE HFC 99 - 104, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:55 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster
Co-Chair Mulder Representative Grussendorf
Vice Chair Bunde Representative Kohring
Representative Austerman Representative Moses
Representative J. Davies Representative Williams
Representative G. Davis
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson; Darwin Peterson, Staff, Senator
Torgerson; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal
Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law;
Janet Seitz, Staff, Representative Rokeberg; George
Utermohle, Legal Counsel, Legislative Affairs Agency
TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dave Liebersbach, Director, Division of Emergency Services,
Military and Veterans Affairs.
SUMMARY
HB 34 "An Act relating to the crime of misprision of a
crime against a child."
HB 34 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 67 "An Act relating to release of certain persons
alleged to have committed certain sexual
offenses."
CSHB 67 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with and a fiscal
impact note by the Department of Administration
and a zero fiscal note by the Department of
Corrections, published date 4/16/99.
CSSB 101(FIN) am
"An Act relating to disasters and to the disaster
relief fund."
SB 101 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 101(FIN) am
"An Act relating to disasters and to the disaster
relief fund."
DARWIN PETERSON, STAFF, SENATOR TORGERSON read the sponsor
statement in support of SB 101:
The House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee
Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 101
clarifies the definition of a disaster by replacing
vague terminology in statute with more specific
language. This will direct the executive branch of
government in identifying what constitutes a disaster
prior to making a gubernatorial disaster declaration.
In addition to amending the definition of disaster, HCS
CS SB 101(MLV) makes a diversion from current law to
the funding limits within the executive branch in
reference to disaster emergencies. The governor is
given broad authorization to expend up to $1,000,000 to
prevent or minimize the effects of an event or a
disaster within the state. If the governor feels that
further expenditures from state funds are necessary in
excess of $1,000,000 for a specific event, legislative
authorization or a presidential declaration of disaster
is required. Wildland fire disasters are exempt from
this policy.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the sponsor had concerns with
the HCS (STA) version. Mr. Peterson replied that they had
concerns with language on page 2, section 3. He explained
that there are two caps under current law, one at $500
thousand dollars and one at $1 million dollars. These were
combined into one cap of $1 million dollars. He recommended
that the two limitations remain separate. The caps would be
under $500 thousand dollars for a broad variety of events
and $1 million dollars for specifically for disasters.
Seventy-five percent of disasters since 1978 have been under
$500 thousand dollars. This would return to the current
statutory limitation.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there is no cap on wildlife
fires.
Mr. Peterson also pointed to page 3, lines 4 - 6. He
explained that under current law the Governor must notify
the presiding officers if he wishes to spend more than a
million dollars. The Senate language required the presiding
officer to poll all members of the legislature and receive
majority consent. He acknowledged that it could be difficult
to contact all members during the interim. The sponsor
recommends that the presiding officers contact a majority of
members telephonically. There would still need majority
consent. If 31 members agree that a special session is not
necessary than the governor could go ahead with the disaster
plan.
Mr. Peterson referred to page 4, definition of disaster. The
Senate wanted a more concise definition. "An event such as"
may be objectionable due to its broad interpretation.
Representative Foster observed that "including" was deleted
from page 4, line 9.
Mr. Peterson explained that the language was amended in the
House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. The intent
was to broaden the definition and allow the governor to
declare a disaster on any event that resulted in a disaster
of $2 million dollars. The Senate definition was more
specific. In the Senate version, the governor could spend up
to $1 million dollars on disasters that were enumerated. The
governor could spend up to $500 thousand dollars on
disasters that were not enumerated such as a plane
collision. If the governor want to spend more than $500
thousand dollars on a disaster that was not enumerated he
would have to address the legislature.
In response to a question by Representative Foster, Mr.
Peterson noted that if there was a disaster such as a plane
crash the governor could spend funds immediately. He
estimated that further funding could be obtained within a
few hours.
Representative Foster recalled an emergency in his district.
It took 14 calls and an hour and a half before he was able
to reach anyone to respond.
Representative Austerman concluded that the sponsor's
concern is with the addition of "such as". He clarified that
the sponsor prefers the Senate version. He ascertained that
if the disaster was not defined the governor would have $500
thousand dollars.
Representative Foster noted that a number of people would
have to be contacted. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that
the governor would only need to contact further members if
he wanted to spend more than $500 thousand dollars.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of the House
State Affairs Committee version. He stated that he would
prefer to argue to the funding after the disaster. He did
not want to see a delay on funding.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the $500 thousand
dollar and $1 million dollar limitations exist in current
law. In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr.
Peterson noted that the current disaster spending limits
have not created problems.
Representative J. Davies stated that page 2, lines 6 and 7
needed further clarification.
"The governor may expend during a fiscal year not more
than $1,000,000 of state funds per event to prevent,
minimize, or respond to the effects of an event that
occurs in the state..."
He pointed out that if an event is prevented then it is not
an event that occurred. He suggested that additional
language is needed to clarify this provision.
Representative J. Davies questioned the intent of language
on page 3, line 17 - 20.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, if the declaration of a disaster
emergency occurs while the legislature is in
session or if a special session is held, actions
taken by the governor under this chapter after
the close of the session that are not ratified
by law adopted during that session are void."
He pointed out that action could be the result of a law
previously adopted. He maintained that the language is over
reaching and should be deleted. He suggested that any
actions taken that are inconsistent with law adopted during
the session should be void.
Mr. Peterson stated that the language states that if the
governor goes over the cap and the legislature disagrees,
that any action taken by the governor would be void.
Representative Austerman referred to the Bristol Bay
economic disaster. Mr. Peterson replied that there is no
place in the bill that specifically discusses economic
disasters. The legislature discusses physical disaster.
Representative Austerman questioned if "such as" could open
the door to economic disasters. Mr. Peterson replied that
it might be possible if an economic disaster was caused by
an event "such as" the ones listed.
Representative J. Davies suggested that it would be
difficult to separate natural and economic disasters. Co-
Chair Therriault referred to page 4, lines 2 - 4. He
observed that "the occurrence or imminent threat of
widespread or severe damage, injury, [OR] loss of life or
property" could have an economic impact. He observed that a
shortage of food could cause a loss of life and a shortage
of fuel during winter months could cause a loss of property.
He asked why the Senate added the language. Mr. Peterson
explained that the Senate Finance Committee inserted the
language in case a disaster resulted in a shortage of food,
water or fuel. Co-Chair Therriault felt that the language
was unnecessary.
Representative Foster observed that the State Emergency
Response Commission passed a resolution signed by Phillip
Oates, Commissioner of Military and Veterans Affairs
opposing SB 101 (copy on file).
DAVE LIEBERSBACH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES,
MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS testified via teleconference.
He stated that the Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs feels that the House State Affairs Committee version
is workable. He referred to the resolution by the State
Emergency Response Commission. Discussions with the State
Emergency Response Commission indicated that they would not
object to the current version.
Representative Foster questioned if there is a federal
definition for "disaster". Mr. Liebersbach clarified that
there is a federal definition for "disaster". He explained
that the Western Alaska Fisheries disaster was not included
under the definition of a major disaster by the presidential
declaration. The federal funds for the Western Alaska
Fisheries disaster were obtained under a different route.
In response to a question by Representative Foster, Mr.
Liebersbach noted that the addition of "an event such as" on
line 5, page 4 has broaden the legislation sufficiently to
allow the support of the department. He pointed out that he
did not want to try to delineate every possible disaster for
the future. He stressed that there needs to be a broad
enough interpretation to allow coverage.
Representative Austerman noted that he requested a breakdown
of the $60 million federal dollars appropriated through the
Steven's Act.
Co-Chair Therriault expressed concern with the addition of
the language "an event such as".
CAROL CARROLL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES stated that the breakdown of
federal funds is available and that she would provide it to
members.
Representative Grussendorf asked how long the statutory
limitation of $500 thousand dollars has been in placed. Ms.
Carroll noted that the limitations have been in placed since
the 1970's. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the
value of the funds has decreased.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the bill proposes one
limitation. He questioned if there is a problem with the
current statute. Ms. Carroll noted that $500 thousand
dollars could be used to advert a disaster or an imminent
event that might cause a disaster. Under an actual disaster
the entire $1 million dollars would be available. The
legislation allows $1 million dollars to be spent on a
disaster or to divert a disaster.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that 75 percent of the disasters that
have occur in the state of Alaska since 1978 have been under
$500 thousand dollars. He questioned if it would be possible
to spend more than $500 thousand dollars within the first
few minutes. Ms. Carroll replied that it is difficult to
tell. She noted that a lot of money could be spent within a
few minutes for a major disaster, if out-of-state resources
were used. She stressed that if the state is committed to
expend funds that they will be expended.
Representative Foster observed that under the House State
Affairs version the Governor would have to contact 6
members. He questioned how the decision would be carried. He
expressed concern that it could take time. He noted that
there would be an executive committee making the decision.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the legislation
requires that the Governor shall prepare and deliver to the
Commissioner's Office and chairs of finance a financing plan
describing the amount.
Representative Foster expressed concern that a decision
could be made not to have a special session without input
from individual members.
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, LEGAL COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY
responded to previous questions. He emphasized that the
listing of events of a similar nature that are classified
modifies an event "such as". He clarified that a riot would
not be "an event such as" if it were not included in the
list.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if economic disasters would be
swept in under the list of events "such as". Mr. Utermohle
observed that disasters that have an economic affect could
be included, but stated that a pure economic disaster as
defined in, AS 44 would not be included under the language.
Co-Chair Therriault asked why "an event such as" is needed.
Representative Grussendorf suggested that a meteorite would
not be included without the additional language. Mr.
Utermohle noted that the issue is how tight the boundary
would be drawn around disasters the governor could declare.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the governor would
still be able to respond to an event that was not detailed,
such as a meteorite, because some of the other events would
occur.
Vice-Chair Bunde stated that the language clarifies that the
events would be natural in nature and exclude economic
disasters. Mr. Utermohle agreed.
(Tape Change, HFC 99 -103, Side 2)
Co-Chair Therriault reiterated questions by Representative
J. Davies regarding the need for language on page 3, line 17
- 20. Mr. Utermohle explained that the language is a
modification of existing law. He noted that the language
would void actions of the governor not sanctioned by the
legislature. He stressed that "it is a function of how tight
a rein the legislature wants to keep on the governor. The
governor's authority to precede expires when the legislature
adjourns if the governor's action was not ratified by the
legislature. Under the legislation, a disaster appropriation
could be cut off at any time by appropriate legislative
action.
In response to a question by Representative Foster, Mr.
Utermohle explained that language on page 3, line 4 pertains
to delivery of the governor's financing plan. He noted that
the other members of the body have the ability to call
themselves into special session. Co-Chair Therriault noted
that the language on page 3, lines 4 - 6 allows the governor
to expend money if the legislature decides not to go into a
special session.
Representative J. Davies referred to page 5, lines 5 - 8.
Mr. Utermohle noted that the language carries forward
existing language. He stated that the following language
could be deleted from existing law in order to resolve
Representative J. Davies' concerns.
"The governor may expend during a fiscal year not more
than $1,000,000 of state funds per event to prevent,
minimize, or respond to the effects of an event that
occurs in the state and that, in the determination of
the governor, poses a direct and imminent threat."
Vice-Chair Bunde questioned if the governor could declare a
disaster on an event that occurs in Canada or another state.
Mr. Utermohle noted that the language clarifies that the
Governor is responding to events in the state of Alaska.
Vice-Chair Bunde referred to page 3, lines 17 - 20. He
questioned if the language is a pocket veto for the
legislature. Mr. Utermohle stated that if the legislature
does not ratify the governor's actions than his authority to
operate ends. It compels the legislature to take action if
the disaster is to be addressed.
Representative J. Davies summarized that the legislature
would have to ratify disaster expenditures under $1 million
dollars. Mr. Utermohle clarified that expenditures after the
end of the session or special session would not be
authorized. Expenditures during the legislative session
would be authorized under the governor's authority. The
language speaks to a declared disaster as opposed to an
event. An event is not necessarily a disaster.
SB 101 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 34
"An Act relating to the crime of misprision of a crime
against a child."
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, SPONSOR explained that the
legislation was the result of a case that occurred in
Nevada. A seven-year-old child was molested and killed in a
casino restroom. A friend of the perpetrator observed the
act. He later gave the perpetrator a ride back to
California. The person observing did not act to assist the
minor during the assault and murder.
Representative Dyson noted that since this crime eight
states have made it a misdemeanor to refuse to go to the aid
to a child who is actively being assaulted. He noted that
laws to assist were very common in American and English
common law over a 130 years ago. The duty to assist did not
survive when states moved to statute law. He noted that
professional mariners are required to go to the aid of a
vessel in need of assistance. Police and military personnel
also have a duty to assist those in distress. The
legislation would make it a class A misdemeanor to refuse to
assist a minor. He observed that it is a positive offense if
a person does not help the child because they are afraid for
their own life or safety. He noted that fiscal notes are
indeterminate because it is unclear how many cases would be
prosecuted. He estimated that there would only be one or two
cases in a decade. He stressed that a culture's values are
reflected in its law. He observed that under current statute
a person could sell tickets to an assault of a child with
impunity.
Representative J. Davies spoke in support of the
legislation. He asked why it is limited to children.
Representative Dyson noted that the Senate version of the
legislation was not restricted to children. He stated that
the concept of the duty to assist is not common to our
statute law. He observed that legislation pertaining to
those viewed as incompetent, such as children under the age
of majority would be easier to defended. He stated that an
argument could be made to extend the law to developmental
disabled or profoundly handicapped adults. He stated that he
would support an expansion of the legislation.
Vice-Chair Bunde clarified that "child" would be defined as
anyone under 18 years of age. He asked how serious crimes
committed by a child would be addressed. Representative
Dyson noted that the bill does not speak to anticipated
crimes. He referenced page 1, line 8:
"Witnesses what the person knows or reasonably should
know is (A) the murder or attempted murder of a child
by another; (B) The kidnapping or attempted kidnapping
of a child by another; (C) The sexual penetration or
attempted sexual penetration by another."
Representative Dyson stated that "a crime is about to
happen" could be added after "reasonably should know".
Co-Chair Therriault stressed that consideration should be
given to the possible fiscal impact.
Representative Grussendorf questioned the effect the
legislation would have on witnesses. He noted that a person
who did not respond during the event could be penalized if
they come forth as a witness after the fact. He expressed
concern a person may view something but not be sure of what
is happening at the time of the event.
Representative Dyson acknowledged the difficulty of knowing
if a child is being kidnapped or is just acting up to their
parents. He noted that the legislation addresses what a
person "knows" or "reasonably should know." He observed
that not being certain of a confusing situation is a
positive defense. He added that exceptions are made for
those fearing injury: "did not report in a timely manner
because the defendant reasonably believed that doing so
would have exposed the defendant or others to a substantial
risk of physical injury." He observed that people are afraid
of involvement in domestic violence cases. He stressed that
prosecutors would grant witnesses immunity from prosecution
in order to allow testimony against perpetrators.
Representative Kohring spoke in support of the legislation
and questioned if the penalty should be a felony instead of
a misdemeanor. Representative Dyson stated that the penalty
was a felony in the original legislation. He explained that
the legislation asks that people assist in instances that
would be class E felonies. He explained that if the penalty
for failing to assist were a felony that the perpetrator and
the person who failed to assist could be charged the same.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW acknowledged
that no one would disagree that people have a moral
obligation to help a child. She stressed that the problem
occurs when it is made a crime. She emphasized that the
legislation pertains to a person that simply witnesses a
crime. She observed that it is already against the law to
help a perpetrator during or after a crime. The legislation
only addresses a person who witnesses an offense. She
acknowledged that the person should go to the aid of the
child. The concern is that if a person witnesses a crime and
does not report it in a timely manner that they would be
lost as a witness. She noted that witnesses would be locked
into their previous testimony, for fear that they will be
charged if they change their story and tell the truth.
Failure to assist was a crime in common law, but fell into
disuse due to problems. She suggested that the legislation
begin with the most serious crimes, murder, kidnapping and
perhaps attempted murder. She stressed that the broader the
bill the greater the problems in relationship to witnesses.
She noted that the difference between felony and misdemeanor
assaults could be subtle. The difference involves the mental
state of the perpetrator in relationship to intent,
recklessness or criminal negligence. She recommended that
felonious assault be deleted and the legislation be limited
to murder, kidnapping and perhaps sexual assault in the
first degree.
Representative Grussendorf observed that the state of
Minnesota has a similar law. He asked if other states have
broader laws. Ms. Carpeneti did not know.
Vice-Chair Bunde questioned if the person that witnessed the
Nevada crime could have been prosecuted in Alaska since he
aided the escape of the perpetrator. Ms. Carpeneti stated
that Alaska law states prohibits a person from aiding and
helping a person escape with intent. She felt that it would
have been possible to investigate the charge if it the crime
had occurred in Alaska. She noted aiding a criminal is a
class A felony in Alaska.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if Representative Dyson would be
willing to drop the assault charge. Representative Dyson
stated that he would be willing to drop assault if it were
necessary to advance the bill, but that it would not be his
choice.
Ms. Carpeneti explained that a class A felony has a penalty
of one year imprisonment and a $500 thousand dollar fine.
In response to comments by Representative Foster, Ms.
Carpeneti reiterated that the legislation allows an
affirmative defense of fear.
Representative Dyson gave examples of similar legislation
enacted by other states. He noted that Massachusetts has
also included armed robbery.
Representative J. Davies questioned if there would be a way
to further delineate assaults. He observed that "assaults
punishable as a felony" is a high standard. He suggested
that the language could read "an assault such as armed
robbery." Representative Dyson explained that felonious
assaults include a deadly weapon. He noted that the
definition of a deadly weapon is subject to interpretation.
Co-Chair Therriault stressed that the general public would
not know the level of the offense under the law. Ms.
Carpeneti acknowledged that felony is a legal term.
Representative Dyson pointed out that there is no penalty
for reporting lower level assaults.
In response to a question by Vice-Chair Bunde,
Representative Dyson explained that molestation and abuse
were not added in order to clarify the legislation. The
intent is that a child in grave danger receives assistance.
Vice-Chair Bunde stressed that the legislation needs to be
clearly defined.
Representative J. Davies suggested that "punishable as a
felony" be deleted and "an assault that would inflict severe
physical harm" be inserted. Ms. Carpeneti stated that the
language would improve the legislation. She recommended that
the legislation be restricted to murder, kidnapping and
sexual assault in the first degree. She added that assault
in the first degree could be added. She pointed out that
there is no penalty for a person who reports every time they
see a child in need.
Representative J. Davies expressed concern that the use of
"felony" would provide a loophole.
Representative Dyson stressed that the legislation pertains
to children being assaulted by an adult. Co-Chair Therriault
pointed out that the legislation includes children up to the
age of 18. Representative Grussendorf noted that the adult
could be one or two years older than the victim.
Ms. Carpeneti explained that first degree sexual assault is
usually sexual penetration without consent. Ms. Carpeneti
recommended that sexual penetration without consent could be
used to limit the legislation to sexual assault in the first
degree. Representative Grussendorf asked if the age of
consent would affect the legislation. Ms. Carpeneti
clarified that it would not impact the legislation. The main
issue is the consent.
Representative J. Davies asked that the legislation be held
for 24 hours to allow an amendment. Representative Dyson
supported his request.
HB 34 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
(Tape Change, HFC 99 - 104, Side 1)
HOUSE BILL NO. 67
"An Act relating to release of certain persons alleged
to have committed certain sexual offenses."
JANET SEITZ, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG spoke in support
of the legislation. She read from the sponsor statement. She
noted that the legislation was proposed to strengthen
protection for sexually abused victims.
This bill adds a new section (release in sexual abuse
and sexual assault cases) that mandates the court to
consider safety of the alleged victim in the following
cases: sexual assault [first degree to third degree],
Sexual abuse of a minor [first degree to third degree],
incest, unlawful exploitation of a minor, and indecent
exposure in the first degree.
The bill permits the judge to impose additional
conditions on a person charged or convicted of these
crimes concerning no contact with alleged victim,
residing in a place where there is no likelihood of
coming in contact with the victim, and taking
medication as prescribe.
Currently a victim is usually notified of a bail
hearing but inquiry by the judicial officer as to if
such notification has been made is not statutorily
required. This was where the system broke down in my
constituent's case. The bill indicates that before a
person who is charged or convicted of one of these
crimes is released that the judicial officer is
required to ask about the notice of the victim or
victim's representative. The judicial officer is also
to inquire if the victim or victim's representative is
in court and wishes to comment.
This legislation stems from a situation faced by one of
my constituents this past year. This person's young
child was sexually abused. The parent was not notified
of the bail hearing and the predator, who changed his
plea at the last minute, was released back into the
community [and is still out in the community awaiting
sentencing which has now been scheduled for May] with
minimal supervision despite the District Attorney's
request for 24-hour supervision. As might be expected,
the victim's parent was outraged that the criminal who
abused a young child was again in the community without
any supervision. I agreed with the parent's concerns
and introduced this legislation.
Ms. Seitz explained that the perpetrator was in violation of
the three-mile limit within the victim's home. The
legislation gives the judicial system a way to assure that
the victim's concerns are addressed.
Ms. Seitz explained that the original legislation mandated
24-hour close supervision and additional notice to the
victim. Discussions with the Department of Law and the
Alaska Court System indicated that there could be
constitutional concerns with the mandates. The Department of
Law suggested language in section 1. This method is used by
the Alaska Court System in domestic violence cases. The
legislation was referred to the House Judiciary and Finance
Committees.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the judge
currently has this authority. The legislation directs the
Court to act.
Representative J. Davies questioned the statutory references
Ms. Seitz noted statutes reference by the legislation:
11.41.410 Sexual Assault in the First Degree
11.41.420 Sexual Assault in the Second Degree
11.41.425 Sexual Assault in the Third Degree
11.41.434 Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the First Degree
11.41.435 Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the Second Degree
11.41.438 Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the Third Degree
11.41.450 Incest
11.41.455 Unlawful Exploitation of a Minor
11.41.458 Indecent Exposure in the First Degree
Vice-Chair Bunde expressed concern with page 2, lines 10 -
12. Ms. Seitz stated that the intent is that some effort be
made to notify the victim. She observed that reasonable
effort language came from the Department of Law. Ms.
Carpeneti explained that "reasonable effort" was added
because defendants are entitled to a bail hearing within a
certain period of time. She observed that problems occur
when the witness is unavailable. Some hearings cannot be
delayed. She noted that bail hearings can occur within a
couple of hours.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if "reasonable effort" is legally
defensible. Ms. Carpeneti stated that it would be legally
defensible. She observed that trials allow more time to
subpoena witnesses. The problem occurs more often in terms
of hearings that are set at the last minute such as a bail
hearing. Defendants have a right to appear before a judge
within 24 hours to argue the terms of their bail.
Representative J. Davies asked if victims receive notice
that there is a possibility of a bail hearing within 24
hours. Ms. Carpenenti did not know the answer to the
question.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked for a guess on how many cases would
be involved. Ms. Carpeneti stated that the Department of Law
did not submit a fiscal note. She observed that the
Department of Corrections could encounter costs associated
with transportation of prisoners. Other costs could involve
delayed hearings.
Representative G. Davis questioned if victim's rights groups
have been active in assisting in notification. Ms. Carpeneti
did not know if victim's rights groups would have time to
receive notice. Representative G. Davis thought that some
groups have members in the court on an on-going basis.
Ms. Seitz noted that the House Judiciary Committee adopted
the fiscal note that was submitted to the original version
of the legislation.
Vice-Chair Bunde MOVED to report CSHB 67 (JUD) out of
Committee with the accompanying updated fiscal notes. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 67 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with and a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Administration and a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Corrections, published date 4/16/99.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
House Finance Committee 14 4/26/99
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|