Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/19/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 19, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Cliff Davidson
Rep. Jim Nordlund
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 78: "An Act relating to the testimony of children in
certain criminal proceedings; and providing for an
effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 64: "An Act creating the crimes of stalking in the
first and second degrees and providing penalties
for their violation; providing a peace officer
with the authority to arrest without a warrant a
person the peace officer has reasonable cause to
believe has committed stalking; relating to the
release before trial of a person accused of
stalking; prohibiting the suspension of imposition
of sentence of a person convicted of stalking;
relating to the crime of assault in the third
degree; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
RENA BUKOVICH
Legislative Aide
Rep. Eileen MacLean
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 507
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4833
Position Statement: Spoke on behalf of prime sponsor
of HB 78
MARGOT KNUTH
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Discussed HB 78 and HB 64
REP. CYNTHIA TOOHEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4919
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 64
LAURE KNOPP
P.O. Box 794
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Phone: 895-4150
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
LEE ANN LUCAS
Special Assistant
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
Phone: 465-4322
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
SUSAN PARKES
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
1031 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 269-5132
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
JOEY ADAMS
1381 Hillcrest Drive #102
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: 272-1381
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
BUCK ADAMS
1381 Hillcrest Drive #102
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: 272-1381
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
ANNE PENCE
P.O. Box 43
Kasilof, Alaska 99610
Phone: 262-2751
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
MARCIA MCKENZIE
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
Phone: 465-4356
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
CINDY SMITH
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
419 Sixth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-3650
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
ELIZABETH CUADRA
P.O. Box 33678
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Phone: 789-2084, 586-3340
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
HEATHER FLYNN
Executive Director
Abused Women's Aid in Crisis (AWAIC)
100 West 13th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 279-9581
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
ROBERT LAUX
P.O. Box 92331
Anchorage, Alaska 99509
Phone: 275-3822
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
SUSAN STEGE
Standing Together Against Rape (STAR)
1057 Fireweed
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 276-7273
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
SHIRLEY WARNER, Captain
Anchorage Police Department
4501 South Bragaw
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Phone: 786-8558
Position Statement: Supported HB 64
DEBORAH LUPER
Legislative Aide
Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 113
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-2095
Position Statement: Supported the concept of HB 64
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 78
SHORT TITLE: TESTIMONY OF MINORS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACLEAN,Toohey,Nicholia
TITLE: "An Act relating to the testimony of children in
certain criminal proceedings; and providing for an effective
date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 129 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 130 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/08/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/10/93 287 (H) HES RPT 7DP
02/10/93 287 (H) DP: KOTT,VEZEY,BUNDE,G.DAVIS
02/10/93 287 (H) DP: TOOHEY, NICHOLIA, BRICE
02/10/93 287 (H) -2 ZERO FNS (DPS, ADM) 2/10/93
02/10/93 312 (H) COSPONSOR(S): NICHOLIA
02/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 64
SHORT TITLE: ANTI-STALKING LAW
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) TOOHEY,Phillips,Olberg,
Ulmer,Hudson,Porter,B.Davis,Mackie,Carney
TITLE: "An Act creating the crimes of stalking in the first
and second degrees and providing penalties for their
violation; providing a peace officer with the authority to
arrest without a warrant a person the peace officer has
reasonable cause to believe has committed stalking; relating
to the release before trial of a person accused of stalking;
and prohibiting the suspension of imposition of sentence of
a person convicted of stalking."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/93 74 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/15/93 74 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/29/93 183 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PORTER
02/01/93 201 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B.DAVIS
02/03/93 223 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MACKIE
02/15/93 351 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CARNEY
02/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-16, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN PORTER called the House Judiciary Committee meeting
to order at 1:22 p.m. on Friday, February 19, 1993. A
quorum was present.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the meeting was being
teleconferenced. He stated that HB 64, Anti-Stalking Law
and HB 78, Testimony of Minors in Criminal Trials, were on
the calendar. He called Rena Bukovich of Rep. Eileen
MacLean's office to come forward and address the committee
regarding HB 78.
HB 78 - TESTIMONY OF MINORS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
Number 033
RENA BUKOVICH, AIDE TO REP. EILEEN MACLEAN, prime sponsor of
HB 78, read Rep. MacLean's testimony into the record. She
said that the purpose of HB 78 was to protect children under
the age of 16 from appearing as witnesses in criminal
proceedings. She said that under current law, a court could
require that the testimony of a child victim or witness be
taken via closed-circuit television or through one-way
mirrors if it was determined that requiring a child to
testify under normal procedures would cause the inability of
the child to testify. She noted that current law allowed
these special procedures to be used only for children under
the age of 13; HB 78 would allow the court to extend these
procedures to cover children under the age of 16.
MS. BUKOVICH said that the confrontation clause in the
constitution required a defendant to meet her or his
accuser, except in special cases. She added that the U.S.
Supreme Court had upheld limits to the right of
confrontation, as long as the decision to use special
procedures rested with the court. She stated that other
states used a range of ages, from 10 to 16, at which special
court procedures could no longer be used.
MS. BUKOVICH noted that HB 78 contained a retroactivity
clause in which crimes committed before the bill's passage,
but not yet prosecuted, would be subject to the new law.
Number 085
REP. GREEN asked if the only change made by HB 78 was
raising the age by three years.
MS. BUKOVICH said that was correct.
Number 096
MARGOT KNUTH, of the DEPARTMENT OF LAW, told the committee
that there were few circumstances where the special court
procedures were used. However, she noted, in these few
circumstances, the use of the special procedures was very
important. She said HB 78 would increase the Department of
Law's flexibility.
MS. KNUTH commented that questions regarding a defendant's
right to confront her or his accuser versus the availability
of a witness to testify had been addressed by the U.S.
Supreme Court. She stated that the use of special
procedures for children under the age of 13 had already been
approved by the Alaska Court of Appeals and expressed an
opinion that changing the age to 16 would not result in any
problems.
Number 139
REP. GREEN mentioned that legislation reducing the age at
which a juvenile could be tried for an adult crime had been
introduced. He expressed a concern that the provisions of
HB 78 could contradict the provisions of the other
legislation. He asked if many children would benefit from
HB 78.
Number 169
MS. KNUTH replied that the special procedures were most
often used with children who were victims of sexual abuse.
She said that it was conceivable to her that children aged
14, 15 or 16 who had been sexually abused might be unable to
testify in the presence of a defendant.
Number 195
REP. PHILLIPS reiterated Rep. Green's question about a
possible conflict between lowering the age at which a
juvenile could be tried for an adult crime and the
provisions of HB 78.
Number 205
MS. KNUTH said that she saw no such conflict. She said that
the law treated victims and perpetrators differently, and
that there was no single "age of majority" in our society.
Number 235
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that HB 78 did not cover those people
charged with crimes, but just witnesses and victims.
Number 242
REP. GREEN moved that the committee pass out HB 78 with a
zero fiscal note and with individual recommendations.
Hearing no objections to the motion, CHAIRMAN PORTER ordered
that HB 78 be moved out of the Judiciary Committee.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that HB 64 was the next item of
business before the committee and called Rep. Cynthia
Toohey, the bill's sponsor, to address the committee.
HB 64 - ANTI-STALKING LAW
Number 261
REP. CYNTHIA TOOHEY, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 64, cited
statistics and studies relating to female murder victims.
She said that California had passed the nation's first anti-
stalking law in 1990, and 30 other states had since followed
suit. She said that the laws were the result of stalking
victims' frustration with law enforcement officials'
inability to intervene prior to an outright attack on a
victim.
REP. TOOHEY said that HB 64 had been modeled after the state
of Michigan's law. Since its introduction, she had been
working with the Department of Law, the Department of Public
Safety, and other entities to address concerns. She noted
that the committee members had before them a proposed
committee substitute that incorporated changes resulting
from that work. She indicated that the draft committee
substitute was supported by the Department of Law, the
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, the Homer
Police Department, and the Anchorage Police Department.
Number 320
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the bill before the committee
was the committee substitute which Rep. Toohey had
mentioned. In addition, he noted that the committee would
address a number of minor amendments to that committee
substitute. He indicated his intention to not pass the bill
out of committee immediately, but to hold the bill until the
new amendments could be incorporated.
Number 335
REP. KOTT moved to adopt the blank committee substitute as
the document which the committee would be working on.
Hearing no objection, CHAIRMAN PORTER adopted the blank
committee substitute as the vehicle that the committee would
be addressing.
Number 341
REP. PHILLIPS asked Rep. Toohey if she had a document
outlining the changes between the original HB 64 and the
committee substitute.
Number 349
REP. TOOHEY said that she did have such a document.
REP. PHILLIPS asked that a copy of the document be provided
to each committee member.
Number 353
MS. KNUTH called HB 64 a very effective tool for the
Department of Law. She noted that the law would allow the
state to take action before a serious tragedy occurred. She
mentioned instances in which women had called police because
they were scared, and the police could do nothing. She said
that HB 64 would allow police to intervene in situations
earlier than they currently were able to.
Number 360
MS. KNUTH stated that changes requested by the Department of
Law and embodied in the work draft involved elements of the
offense. She said the offense described in HB 64 resembled
existing offenses in Alaska law, but filled a gap in current
law. She noted that the offense described in HB 64 drew
upon Alaska's criminal code and would be comprehensible to
judges, defenders, and prosecutors.
Number 375
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Knuth to give a layman's
definition of the elements of HB 64.
MS. KNUTH said that HB 64 addressed repeated acts directed
against a person that would recklessly place that person in
fear of death or serious physical injury. She said stalking
differed from existing assault laws in that assault laws
required imminence. She added that warrantless arrests
could be made for stalking.
Number 443
LAURE KNOPP testified via teleconference from Delta Junction
that she and her family were being stalked by an individual,
and that the state troopers' hands were tied. She noted the
empathy and frustration of law enforcement officials, but
their powerlessness to act. Because she lived in a rural
area, she added, law enforcement officers would be unable to
respond quickly enough to a situation of imminent danger.
She said that each area of nonconsensual conduct delineated
in HB 64 had been committed by the individual stalking her.
Number 474
LEE ANN LUCAS, from the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, said
that HB 64 was a needed addition to the Alaska criminal
code. She noted that the department had three concerns with
the bill. First, they thought that the definition of
"family member" on page 2 should be broadened to include
someone in a "dating, courtship, or engagement relationship
with the victim." Second, she said the definition on page
2, line 26, was unclear as to whether it would apply to the
family of a victim's spouse. Finally, she said the
department was concerned that the term "immediate family"
used on page 3, line 26, was unclear.
CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated to committee members that the
changes mentioned by Ms. Lucas had already been noted and
would be included in a group of amendments that would be
included in a revised draft of the bill.
REP. PHILLIPS commented that it was important to have a
definition of "family member" in the statute.
Number 535
SUSAN PARKES, a member of the COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, voiced the council's strong support of
HB 64 via teleconference from Anchorage. She noted that the
group had already submitted a position paper, and that she
would therefore keep her comments brief. She mentioned the
gap in current law that HB 64 would fill. Ms. Parkes noted
the frustration currently experienced by victims,
prosecutors, and the police. She said HB 64 would allow
police to take action before a situation became violent.
Number 580
MS. PARKES said the bill's authorization for police to make
warrantless arrests was an important feature of the bill.
She also noted the importance to prosecutors and police
officers of labeling the crime "stalking." She indicated
that the council supported the changes made to the original
bill, but suggested that a provision be added to the bill
that if a stalker was caught with a weapon, a felony would
be committed.
Number 603
JOEY ADAMS testified via teleconference from Anchorage that
she and her family were the victims of a stalker. She
stated that her husband was an Anchorage police officer,
which did not deter the stalker. She commented that she
knew that her stalker carried a weapon, and she was always
afraid, and he was always there. Ms. Adams said that the
police could do nothing in response.
Number 618
OFFICER BUCK ADAMS, the husband of Joey Adams, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He stated that he felt his
perspective on stalking was unique in that he had been a
police officer for 18 years and was also a stalking victim.
He gave examples of the kind of activity his stalker had
engaged in and continued to engage in. He mentioned the
constant fear that he and his family endured as a result of
the stalker's activities. He strongly urged passage of HB
64. He noted his concern about the law's definition of
"fear."
Number 665
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he also felt that the
definition of "fear" should be discussed. He asked Officer
Adams if the bill's other provisions met the circumstances
that the Adams family faced.
Number 670
OFFICER ADAMS responded that he felt the provisions of HB 64
would address his situation, except for the constant,
nagging character defamation that his stalker committed.
Number 680
ANNE PENCE, testifying via teleconference from
Kenai/Soldotna, expressed her support for HB 64. As a
former stalking victim, she said that she could attest to
the need for an anti-stalking law. She said that law
enforcement personnel traditionally either did not believe a
victim or had no legal recourse. She suggested that
notification of victims when stalkers were released from
custody, and bail limitations, be added to HB 64.
Number 700
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that under current law, victims of
this type of offense were notified when a perpetrator was
released.
Number 716
MARCIA MCKENZIE, from the COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND
SEXUAL ASSAULT, reiterated the council's support for HB 64.
Number 727
CINDY SMITH, from the ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, said that a fundamental gap now existed
in the laws pertaining to victims of domestic violence and
sexual assault. She stated that passage of an anti-stalking
law was the network's number one legislative priority for
this year. She cited statistics on domestic violence,
sexual assault, and stalking. She said that laws similar to
HB 64 were on the books in over half of the states in this
country.
MS. SMITH commented that her organization, victims and
police officers all knew what stalking often led to, but
were powerless to stop it. Restraining orders, she noted,
provided only limited assistance to stalking victims. She
mentioned her support of an amendment mentioned earlier
regarding classifying the offense as a felony if the stalker
possessed a weapon.
Number 740
ELIZABETH CUADRA, from Juneau, cited two incidences of
stalking that involved her and her family. She said that
she had been the victim of a stalker in the 1950s, and her
teenage daughter had been stalked during the 1970s.
TAPE 93-16, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. CUADRA cited a current stalking case that she knew of in
Juneau in which a woman had been stalked by another woman
for more than a year. She said that she hoped the committee
would bear in mind the fear instilled in stalking victims.
Number 041
HEATHER FLYNN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of the ABUSED WOMEN'S AID
IN CRISIS (AWAIC) WOMEN'S SHELTER in Anchorage, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage about a former shelter
client who was a stalking victim. Despite two restraining
orders against her husband, she and her children experienced
great emotional and physical abuse at the hands of her
husband. She expressed an opinion that, had an anti-
stalking law been on the books at the time, the woman's
husband would have been stopped before his behavior became
as violent as it had. She said that the police needed the
tool of an anti-stalking law. She urged the committee to
support HB 64.
Number 060
ROBERT LAUX testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
support of HB 64. He thanked Rep. Toohey for introducing
the legislation. He stated that he was currently a stalking
victim. He noted that his stalker was a woman with whom he
had been involved in a relationship. He said that he felt
that he had no recourse against the stalker. He commented
that he thought the bill should be expanded to include
individuals involved in dating relationships with the
victim, and not just the victim's family members.
Number 223
SUSAN STEGE, a counselor from STANDING TOGETHER AGAINST RAPE
(STAR), testified from Anchorage via teleconference in
support of HB 64. She said that the bill would help many of
STAR's clients. She noted her support of an amendment
whereby if a stalker carried a weapon, stalking would be
classified as a felony. She reminded the committee of the
long-term emotional scars that stalking victims suffer from
and suggested that this issue be addressed in HB 64 as well.
Number 250
CAPTAIN SHIRLEY WARNER, of the ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of
HB 64. She said HB 64 would enable police officers to take
quick and sure action in volatile and life-threatening
situations. She stated that police officers were often
forced to tell victims that nothing could be done about a
stalker. She cited a recent case in Anchorage in which an
officer was only able to charge a stalker with disorderly
conduct. Aside from protecting victims, Capt. Warner said
HB 64 would send a clear message to the people that they
could not violate the freedom of another individual.
Number 296
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned the fact that HB 64 contained a
provision allowing the police to arrest stalkers without a
warrant. He noted that the general arrest laws provided
that if a misdemeanor had been committed, an officer could
only make an arrest on the spot if the misdemeanor occurred
in the officer's presence. In a felony case, he added, an
officer only needed probable cause in order to make an
arrest.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that at the present time, an officer
could make an arrest for a misdemeanor based on probable
cause in a domestic violence/assault case. He said HB 64
would make stalking another crime for which warrantless
arrests could be made.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that committee staff would work to
incorporate suggested amendments into the proposed committee
substitute for HB 64 and that the bill would be back before
the committee as soon as that had occurred.
Number 328
REP. TOOHEY said that she did not object to any of the
proposed amendments, but she encouraged the committee to act
on the bill quickly in order that current stalking victims
be protected as soon as possible.
Number 338
REP. KOTT said that he hoped to discuss HB 64 further so
that committee members' views would be addressed in the new
committee substitute. He asked if the bill was establishing
a precedent regarding the period of probation, citing page
6, section (f), of the work draft.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that an amendment addressing the issue
of probation would be incorporated into the proposed
committee substitute.
Number 386
REP. PHILLIPS commented that she was a co-sponsor of HB 64,
but she had only heard comments supporting the bill during
the hearing. She said that she wanted to think about
potential problems with the bill. She mentioned a
hypothetical situation in which a lovesick teenage boy could
be charged with stalking.
Number 416
CHAIRMAN PORTER called ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MARGOT
KNUTH to address the committee on potential abuses of the
anti-stalking law.
Number 420
MS. KNUTH noted that earlier versions of HB 64 had left
others uneasy for reasons similar to those Rep. Phillips
mentioned. She commented that the current version of HB 64
specifically addressed Rep. Phillips' concern by creating
the crime of stalking in the context of "recklessly placing
another person in fear of death or physical injury." She
said that this language would separate out the "lovesick
puppies" from the stalkers.
Number 446
REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth to speak about what criteria
would be used to determine whether someone knowingly engaged
in such conduct. Additionally, he asked who would judge the
behavior.
Number 455
MS. KNUTH mentioned that criminal law employed different
standards for conduct and for circumstances. For conduct,
she said that it was typical that a person's conduct must be
"knowing." She explained that a person under anesthesia
would not have acted "knowingly." As to who would judge
that, she said that all members of the legal society, from a
police officer to the judge and jury, would judge.
MS. KNUTH commented that in terms of circumstances, HB 64
referred to "recklessly." She said that reckless behavior,
in statute, referred to a person having reason to know that
a circumstance existed and disregarded that circumstance.
She said that this was particularly relevant in stalking
cases, where the stalker often knew his or her victim, and
used that knowledge to make his or her conduct so
intimidating.
Number 492
REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth to offer a specific example of
someone who would have "reason to know" and also asked her
if a drunk person would have "reason to know."
Number 507
MS. KNUTH responded that the law addressed intoxication by
saying that a person who was unaware of conduct or
circumstances that they would have been aware of when not
intoxicated, would be held to have acted knowingly. In
other words, alcohol would not be an excuse for acting
knowingly. With respect to acting recklessly, or being
aware of and consciously disregarding a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that one is causing fear to another
person, Ms. Knuth said that she was not a good person to
come up with stalking examples.
MS. KNUTH said that traditional stalking would include
leaving threatening communications, following a victim, and
leaving items for a victim, as part of a plan to torment
someone.
Number 544
REP. DAVIDSON said that everyone knew what stalking was when
they saw it, but questioned how they could define it in law.
He said that he supported an anti-stalking bill that did not
overdo it, but at the same time gave victims necessary
protections. He asked Ms. Knuth about her earlier use of
the term "successive approximations."
MS. KNUTH replied that she had been referring to the
continual development and amendment of criminal laws, with
the goal of perfecting laws so that they neither
overaddressed nor underaddressed situations.
Number 571
REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth what excesses could result
from HB 64.
Number 577
MS. KNUTH commented that HB 64 was a very carefully tailored
bill and she did not see the bill as lending itself to
prosecution excesses. In terms of where there might be a
problem, she noted that a person could call the police
thinking that they were the victim of stalking and the
police would not view the crime as stalking. She added that
she did not believe that the bill would result in improper
arrests or prosecutions.
Number 604
REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth to point out parameters in the
bill that ensured that it was not overbroad.
Number 606
MS. KNUTH said that the phrase, "in fear of death or
physical injury," was a key parameter in the bill that
protected against the law being abused.
Number 616
REP. GREEN said that although he was in favor of HB 64, he
would play the devil's advocate. He said many of the
criteria outlined in HB 64 would fall under the category of
assault or battery.
Number 633
MS. KNUTH noted that the crime of stalking was a combination
of the traditional elements found in the crimes of assault
and battery. However, she noted that the exact combination
of elements did not yet exist in law and needed to be added.
Number 653
REP. GREEN asked Ms. Knuth about the language on page 3,
line 25, of the work draft. He also expressed a concern
about potential abuses of the provision that nonconsensual
contact included a person appearing within the sight of
another person.
Number 678
MS. KNUTH replied that three elements were needed to
constitute stalking, and a person appearing within the sight
of another person was only one of those three elements.
Number 700
REP. GREEN asked who the burden of proof would be on in a
stalking situation.
Number 707
MS. KNUTH noted that there was a general consensus on what
behavior constituted stalking. She agreed that it was
difficult to write a law that was unequivocally tailored to
do nothing more than what a drafter wanted it to do, but
felt that HB 64 came remarkably close to achieving its
desired goal.
TAPE 93-17, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. KNUTH also noted that HB 64 contained some language that
was not a change in law, but rather a simple move of a
statute from the terroristic threatening statutes to the
assault statutes.
Number 026
REP. GREEN expressed a concern that language relating to
deadly weapons was unfair due to differences in humans' size
and their corresponding abilities to inflict harm on other
humans, with or without deadly weapons.
Number 051
MS. KNUTH said that there were cases in which the Court of
Appeals had ruled that feet could be a dangerous instrument.
However, she noted that the present criminal law generally
made distinctions based on whether or not a weapon was
present.
Number 079
REP. NORDLUND asked Ms. Knuth if the citation on the bottom
of page 1 referred to temporary restraining orders.
MS. KNUTH responded that she believed that was the case.
REP. NORDLUND asked Ms. Knuth if a person had to be in
violation of a temporary restraining order in order to be
guilty of first-degree stalking and why that was not true
for second-degree stalking.
MS. KNUTH indicated that violation of a temporary
restraining order was part of first-degree stalking. She
stated that the misdemeanor offense of stalking in the
second degree occurred when someone recklessly placed
another person in fear of death or serious physical injury.
Doing the same thing when a temporary restraining order was
in place constituted the felony crime of first-degree
stalking.
Number 119
REP. NORDLUND asked if arrests could be made without a
warrant for stalking in the first degree.
MS. KNUTH said that because stalking in the first degree was
a felony, a warrantless arrest was possible.
REP. NORDLUND asked why suspended impositions of sentence
were disallowed for stalking crimes.
Number 135
MS. KNUTH stated that a suspended imposition of sentence
allowed a defendant to have a conviction taken off of her or
his record. She added that it was a policy call as to where
the line should be drawn regarding crimes that had suspended
imposition of sentence and those that did not. Regardless
of suspended impositions of sentences, she noted, the police
would always know about arrests for any offenses.
Number 173
REP. NORDLUND asked if the lack of suspended impositions of
sentence was due to the likelihood that stalkers would
repeat the offense.
MS. KNUTH said she believed that this was the belief behind
that particular provision of HB 64.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that one more person wanted to
testify on HB 64.
Number 181
DEBORAH LUPER, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO SEN. LOREN LEMAN,
testified in support of the concept of HB 64. She mentioned
that Sen. Leman, for whom she worked, had sponsored a
similar bill, SB 22. She mentioned her concerns about
several portions of HB 64. She said that she would like to
see a definition of "repeated" in the bill.
MS. LUPER mentioned a hypothetical situation at the Greens
Creek Mine in which HB 64 could be abused. She advocated
changing language from "physical injury" to "serious
physical injury." She expressed an opinion that "fear"
should be defined in the bill as well.
MS. LUPER also commented that the notion of delivering an
object onto property should be expounded upon. She cited a
hypothetical example in which an estranged couple jointly
owned property and the husband delivered an object to the
property, although he was under a court order to not be
there when his wife was there. She said that the bills
should be tightened up so that innocent acts would not be
prosecuted.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the committee would look into
the issues Ms. Luper had raised.
Number 277
REP. DAVIDSON referred to Ms. Luper's example of a husband
delivering an object to property that he jointly owned with
his wife. He asked if there would be an opportunity for a
person to ask for permission of the court to make such a
delivery. He added that Ms. Luper had brought up a very
good point.
Number 290
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that he assumed that a person could
petition the court in that case.
Seeing that the members had no further questions or points
of discussion, CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the suggested
amendments would be incorporated into the current work draft
as soon as possible. He added that the bill would be
brought back before the committee as soon as possible.
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that there seemed to be a problem
in committee members arriving at committee meetings at 1:00
p.m. He asked if any of the members had regular commitments
at 3:00 p.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Since
starting meetings at 1:00 p.m. seemed to be a problem, he
wondered if it would be better to start meetings at 1:30
p.m.
REP. KOTT said that he was on the Health, Education, and
Social Services Committee, which met at 3:00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN PORTER then asked if members would make a concerted
effort to arrive at 1:00 p.m., particularly when
teleconferences were scheduled.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|