Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/03/1995 01:05 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
April 3, 1995
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 234: "An Act relating to administrative adjudication
under the Administrative Procedure Act."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CSSB 14(JUD): "An Act relating to criminal mischief."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 87: "An Act authorizing youth courts to provide for peer
adjudication of minors who have allegedly committed
violations of state or municipal laws, and renaming
the community legal assistance grant fund and
amending the purposes for which grants may be made
from that fund in order to provide financial
assistance for organization and initial operation of
youth courts."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 201: "An Act relating to prisoner litigation,
post-conviction relief, sentence appeals, amending
Alaska Administrative Rule 10, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure 204, 208, 209, 215, 521, 603,
and 604, and Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 11,
33, 35, and 35.1; and providing for an effective
date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General
Commercial Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 1031
West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501-1994
Telephone: (907) 269-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 234
MARY VOLENDORF, Administrative Assistant
to Senator Leman
State Capitol, Room 113
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2095
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement for SB 14
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 564-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 14
ELIZABETH ROBERTS, Legislative Aide
to Representative Bettye Davis
State Capitol, Room 430
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 87
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110600
Juneau, AK 99811-0600
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 234
SHORT TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/06/95 590 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/06/95 590 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
03/06/95 591 (H) 14 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM, DEC, F&G)
03/06/95 591 (H) (DHSS, LABOR, LAW, DPS, DOT)
03/06/95 591 (H) (4-DCED, 2-DOE)
03/06/95 591 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/08/95 665 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 3/8/95
03/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/18/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/20/95 810 (H) STA RPT 3DP 1NR
03/20/95 810 (H) DP: JAMES, GREEN, ROBINSON
03/20/95 810 (H) NR: IVAN
03/20/95 810 (H) 14 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (4-DCED, 2-DOE)
03/20/95 810 (H) (ADM, DEC, F&G, DHSS, LABOR, LAW, DPS)
03/20/95 810 (H) (DOT) 3/6/95
03/20/95 810 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 3/8/95
03/31/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/31/95 (H) MINUTES(JUD)
BILL: SB 14
SHORT TITLE: INCREASED PENALTIES FOR JOYRIDING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN, Halford, Miller, Pearce, Taylor,
Kelly, Green
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Finkelstein, Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 16 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/95
01/16/95 17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 17 (S) JUD, FIN
02/01/95 (S) JUD AT 01:45 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/01/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/03/95 166 (S) COSPONSOR: MILLER
02/06/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/06/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/08/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/15/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/22/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/27/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/27/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/01/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/06/95 491 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 3NR SAME TITLE
03/06/95 491 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO SB (COURT #1, CORR #4)
03/06/95 491 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB (DPS #2, #3, LAW #5)
03/06/95 491 (S) FNS TO CS (COURT #6, DPS #7, LAW #10)
03/06/95 491 (S) ZERO FNS TO CS (DPS #8, CORR #9)
03/15/95 617 (S) FIN RPT 4DP 3NR (JUD)CS
03/15/95 617 (S) FN (ADM #11)
03/15/95 617 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (COURT #6, DPS #7, LAW
#10)
03/15/95 617 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (DPS #8, CORR #9)
03/15/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/15/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/16/95 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
03/16/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/20/95 697 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/20/95
03/20/95 703 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/20/95 703 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/20/95 703 (S) COSPONSOR(S) PEARCE, TAYLOR,
03/20/95 703 (S) KELLY, GREEN
03/20/95 703 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
03/20/95 703 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 14(JUD)
03/20/95 704 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
03/20/95 709 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/22/95 833 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/22/95 833 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/22/95 869 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): FINKELSTEIN
03/24/95 920 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
04/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 87
SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZING YOUTH COURTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS,Davies,Robinson,Brown,James
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/17/95 51 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/17/95 51 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
01/18/95 76 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAVIES
02/06/95 256 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROBINSON
03/23/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/24/95 889 (H) HES RPT 6DP
03/24/95 889 (H) DP: G.DAVIS, BUNDE, ROKEBERG, TOOHEY
03/24/95 889 (H) DP: ROBINSON, BRICE
03/24/95 889 (H) 4 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (COURT, 3-DHSS)
04/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 201
SHORT TITLE: PRISONER LITIGATION AND APPEALS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/27/95 488 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/95 488 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/27/95 488 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, CORR, DPS)
02/27/95 488 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM)
02/27/95 488 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/18/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/20/95 807 (H) STA RPT 3DP 1NR
03/20/95 807 (H) DP: JAMES, GREEN, ROBINSON
03/20/95 807 (H) NR: IVAN
03/20/95 808 (H) 3 ZERO FNS (LAW, CORR, DPS) 2/27/95
03/20/95 808 (H) 2 ZERO FNS (ADM) 2/27/95
03/27/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/27/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/29/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-41, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:05
p.m. on Monday, April 3, 1995. A quorum was present.
Representatives Davis, Finkelstein, and Green were absent.
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER stated that the following bills would be
heard: HB 234, SB 14, and HB 87. He announced that HB 201 was
pulled off of the schedule for further changes. He also mentioned
that at the last meeting, when the committee passed out HB 125,
they had attached a fiscal note from the Court System, which was
actually nullified, because the committee substitute took the Court
System out of the loop. The courts did not have any part in
juvenile records notification, and therefore would not have a
fiscal note. With the committee's permission, he would not forward
that fiscal note on, which is now irrelevant.
HB 234 - ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATIONS
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Section,
Civil Division, Department of Law testified via teleconference. It
is the position of the Administration that administrative
adjudications should be faster and less costly to the parties and
to the state than court proceedings are. Current provisions, which
are confusing and archaic, can cause delay. She said the changes
were run through the Executive Committee of the Alaska Bar
Association. At that meeting, it was found that these changes
would be a major improvement, and would provide a great deal of
clarity. One change would replace registered mail with certified
mail. The provision for witness assistance has changed. Back in
1959, apparently $15 per day was adequate.
MS. WILLIAMS suggested the following change: On page 3, line 17,
instead of the word `subsistence', change it to `food and lodging'.
That will eliminate any question that we are talking about fishing
rights here. The discovery provision gives the agencies the
discretion to allow reasonable discovery. The agencies currently
only have the authorization to give reconsideration for 30 days
after a decision is entered. Here we have used a comparable court
rule that says you have 15 days instead of 30 days, giving the
agency 15 days to reconvene and to give reconsideration to the
request.
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER asked Ms. Williams if changing subsistence to
food and lodging would include transportation costs.
MS. WILLIAMS answered that transportation costs are addressed in
Section 2, starting at line 11. She noted the word `subsistence'
is used on line 26 as well.
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked Ms. Williams about the 14 zero
fiscal notes. She understood that to mean that this will not cost
anything more than it is costing already.
MS. WILLIAMS replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY felt this new language would take an
extremely archaic statute and make it a little less archaic, but
archaic still. He thought the language mandating where hearings
would be held was cumbersome. He thought that language should be
made simpler. It seems to require unnecessary traveling expenses.
He thought it should be in Juneau if it is in the First Judicial
District, Anchorage if in the Third Judicial District, and
Fairbanks, unless agreed to by the parties otherwise.
Number 300
MS. WILLIAMS did not have a position on that one way or the other.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said without the ability to talk to some of the
departments that hold these hearings, they at least have the
ability to allow the parties to agree on a mutually acceptable
site, so short of hearing of any problems with it, he would be
hesitant to change it at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked another question on the whole
Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Why don't we adopt or
coordinate with the rules of uniform arbitration in Title IX?
MS. WILLIAMS said that at some point, some wholesale changes will
be necessary to the APA, but the changes in this bill are ones that
could be made quickly, and that have a zero fiscal note. In fact,
they will save the state money. We needed changes we could make
quickly, recognizing we were going to eventually have to take a
much more serious look at the APA. That is an excellent idea for
us to be looking at later, but she felt it would slow this bill
down if they tried to craft something like that at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment Number 1,
which would change the word `subsistence' to `food and lodging' on
page 3, lines 17 and 26. Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to pass HB 234 out of committee
with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. Seeing no
objection, CSHB 234(JUD) moved out of committee.
Number 370
SB 14 - INCREASED PENALTIES FOR JOYRIDING
MARY VOLENDORF, Administrative Assistant to Senator Leman, sponsor
of CSSB 14(JUD), described the bill. This bill was introduced
because of a recent increase in auto theft, especially in urban
areas, and the lack of convictions. Under the current law, this
type of joyriding is a class A misdemeanor, and for a second
offense, it is a class C felony. Joyriding is commonly associated
with juveniles, and SB 14 targets that group. Juveniles account
for many of the joyriding offenses. Without SB 14, there is no
means to prosecute juveniles for this crime. Instead, they are
brought into the juvenile system and no real penalty is inflicted.
Although locking juveniles away for this offense is not necessarily
the answer, this is a good start in making them responsible for
their actions. The juvenile would be prosecuted, charged and
sentenced the same as an adult would. More importantly, the
juvenile will also be responsible for paying restitution to the
victim. This bill will help decrease the number of vehicles stolen
and the tremendous dollar losses by insurance companies and the
victims of theft.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the age of majority in Alaska was 21
for felonies.
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered it is 18.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY did not understand the purpose of this.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said their was someone from the Department of Law
who could answer questions.
Number 425
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, came forward to testify on the substantive
issues of this bill. She said the Department of Law supports SB
14. In Anchorage there has been an explosion of car theft
offenses. The number of incidents has doubled in a two year time
period. There are now 2,000 to 3,000 car thefts per year.
Anything related to those thefts is going to cost the state money.
This bill started out simply raising the offense of joyriding to a
felony for even a first offense. The Department of Law was
concerned about taking that approach for several reasons. One is
that it costs substantially more to prosecute felonies, and the
second is that we have finally realized that approximately one half
of the offenders here are juveniles, and to increase an offense to
a felony level does not address the juvenile problem at all. What
it does is put a burden on Health and Social Services to have
petitions to have adjudications filed for a property offense. This
is fairly low on the spectrum of offenses that juvenile delinquency
proceedings have resources to deal with, so our proposal was to try
to realistically deal with the juvenile offenders by reducing the
age of majority for this offense.
MS. KNUTH stated this is meant to be a deterrent bill rather than
a punitive bill. Our purpose is to try to catch the attention of
juveniles who are committing these offenses with an emphasis on
restitution and revocation of driving privileges. Currently, until
you reach 18 years of age, you are being handled through Health and
Social Services in juvenile matters, and very little is happening
because of the tremendous resource difficulties they have. This
would allow kids to be cited by officers, or complaints could be
filled out by district attorneys that would bring them into
district court, were they will be brought before a judge who, we
hope, will impress them with the seriousness of the offense. We do
not expect jail time to be imposed for this age group. We do not
feel that is appropriate. It is an option.
MS. KNUTH said the legislature has been addressing joyriding
progressively for several years, and one of the first things that
was done, is that second offenses became felonies. Another thing
that was done is there was a mandatory jail sentence, even for
first offenders, and as the problem has been growing, so have the
efforts to address it. For juveniles, we have taken out the
mandatory jail sentence, which is three days. That is in Section
3 of SB 14. A mandatory minimum three days sentence will apply
only for juveniles who are 18 years of age or older. A judge could
order a juvenile to incarceration time which would be served in a
detention facility, but not in a jail with other adults. It is an
option, but it would not be appropriate if this is a first offense
for the juvenile. It is a property offense. The emphasis should
be on deterrence and rehabilitation instead. What we would expect
is Suspended Imposition of Sentences (SIS) to be granted to these
juveniles with an order of restitution. With an SIS hanging over
a kid's head, that will provide a motivation for making restitution
that has probably been lacking in the juvenile proceedings simply
because of the work load that they have and the limited resources.
We have also taken out for the juvenile offenders that a second
offense is an automatic felony, and instead, as long as the
juvenile is under the age of 18, these offenses are misdemeanors.
When they do turn 18, any joyriding offense they have will count as
the first offense, and for the very next offense they commit over
the age of 18, they will be subject to the felony provisions. If
we have an unusual case in which the kid has a long record of
problems like this, (most joyriding offenses do involve some damage
to the vehicle or loss of use), there is a criminal mischief
provision that says if more than $500 damage is done or economic
loss is sustained, then that is a separate form of criminal
mischief, and that is being left open as an offense that is being
pursued against the juvenile that could go into the felony
disposition. That would go through Health and Social Services'
juvenile delinquency proceedings.
MS. KNUTH mentioned that also you could charge it as just theft of
property valued at over $500; and that could also be on that felony
track, if an unusual case where it seemed to be appropriate. In
the majority of circumstances, it is a crime of opportunity. A
great many of these offenses have been committed when keys have
been left in the car, or it has been otherwise easy to do, and it
was not a premeditated thing. We do not have a lot of juvenile car
rings, who are dedicated to an economic crime. We believe that by
revocation of driving privileges, by emphasizing restitution, we
are creating the potential that this will result in a conviction on
the record if an SIS is not completed satisfactorily. We hope to
finally start deterring more of these offenses and we hope to see
a reduction in the number of joyriding offenses. Anchorage has one
half of all the offenses that are occurring statewide. As a
misdemeanor offense, the state will still be prosecuting unless the
municipality of Anchorage amends its ordinance so that they can
prosecute somebody under the age of 18. She expected their
ordinance to be limited to adult offenders at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if there was any requirement for a cost
to receive the drivers license back again in this bill.
MS. KNUTH answered that the revocation would be the same as it is
now, so the reinstatement of the license would fall under existing
law, which does have that requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said SB 14 will be almost impossible to pass
with this high of a fiscal note, but the state desperately needs
this law. She suggested taking away their permanent fund dividend
(PFD).
MS. KNUTH said there is that option, but she was not sure the
assumption could be made that the person would be eligible for the
PFD. Her first choice for use of the PFD would be for restitution,
and that would not be reflected in the fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN mentioned that the movement of
money would not flow in only one direction. It would not only flow
from the state to the program, but from the juveniles paying
restitution back out into the community. We do not weigh that
factor into the fiscal notes. Sometimes when we pass these bills,
the fiscal notes do not always make it into the budget. He feared
that may happen in this case. He felt the fiscal note was high,
but inappropriate. If we want to enforce the law, it is going to
cost a little bit of money. Many people in his district feels this
is a priority.
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said his constituents are clearly irritated
that car theft is "joyriding." Car theft is a pretty serious
crime. Kids are renting stolen cars from each other. He felt it
should be grand theft auto, and he would be willing to pay the
fiscal note on that. This bill is only a slap on the hand. The
problem of using the PFD, is that if the perpetrator decides not to
apply for his PFD, the victim gets nothing.
MS. KNUTH said for the under 18 age group, the license revocation
is going to be meaningful. One half of joyriding offense are
committed by juveniles under age 18. It may be too little too
late, but it also may not be. The state is very wary of treating
those under 18 as adults for criminal offenses, and she did not
feel this would represent a new direction or trend. The Department
of Law as a whole, believes that our criminal justice system is set
up appropriately. The age of responsibility is 18. You will not
see us coming in and taking this approach for other types of
offenses, but for this particular offense, it seems worth
exploring.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said the bill also provides the ability to charge
the kids who are in the car with the person behind the wheel, so
there is additional incentive to stay away from those kinds of
activities.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Ms. Knuth if she saw this bill working
together with the bill passed previously which would hold parents
of the juvenile responsible for up to $10,000 damage.
MS. KNUTH said yes, she does. If you can motivate parents through
this economic sanction to exercise more control, that would be a
good thing. At least we will get restitution for the victims in
these cases.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if a juvenile can be charged with a
felony.
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that a juvenile can be charged with any
criminal offense, depending on which court jurisdiction they are
into. We are excluding them from being charged with a felony under
this bill, but there are options.
Number 825
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Knuth if juveniles are tried in
adult court if they violate this law under current statute.
MS. KNUTH answered yes, under this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought she had said the purpose of this bill
was so that they would not be charged as adults.
MS. KNUTH apologized for the confusion. It is so that they would
be, because right now they are only being handled by the Division
of Family and Youth Services. The purpose of this bill is to
instead send them to district court as an adult charged with a
misdemeanor. Section 6 of the bill refers to AS 47.10.010 and that
is the juvenile jurisdiction statute. What Section 6 says is that
if you are a minor accused of violating this now, we are adding to
it, criminal mischief, joyriding. That is what the two new
provisions are here. Then the procedures of juvenile delinquency
of AS 47.10.010, may not be followed, except that a parent,
guardian, or legal custodian shall be present at all proceedings.
The minor accused of the offense specified in the subsection shall
be charged, prosecuted, and sentenced in the district court in the
same manner as an adult. That is the section of the bill making
that change that says, "You, who were treated as a juvenile, will
now be treated as an adult for joyriding." One of them is simply
joyriding, and the other is for the passengers in the car.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if he was correct in saying we are
making the change here to bring a juvenile misdemeanor into adult
court.
MS. KNUTH answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that means we are taking persons under
age 18 out of the category of a felony.
MS. KNUTH said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that is where he is lost.
MS. KNUTH clarified this. The reason is essentially philosophical.
We do not think it is appropriate to treat, as an adult, somebody
who is 14, 15, or 16 years old on a felony offense, for a property
offense, not a crime of violence, and to have all of the
consequences of a felony conviction happening to somebody who is
under the age of responsibility in most circumstances. It is such
a big step away from what our current practice is, to be facing
adult consequences on a misdemeanor offense where the emphasis is
on deterrence, license revocation, and restitution. It is a big
step.
TAPE 95-41, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. KNUTH continued to say that the only offense we have automatic
waivers for are only for 16 years and older, and they are for
murder or class A felony offenses against a person. We have a very
small category of automatic waivers into adult court.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said it seems like we are taking away an option,
because we are being told that now this would mean an automatic
waiver situation, and he did not see that, frankly. In the section
for a second offense of joyriding becoming a felony, as the law
exists now, a juvenile offender who was charged for the second
offense of joyriding, could be adjudicated as a felon through the
juvenile court system.
MS. KNUTH said that was correct.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said we are now removing the ability to do that.
MS. KNUTH said the Department of Law does not have any opposition
to the concept he was putting forward, but the Legal Services
drafted it that way.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said we were told that we have to do that because
otherwise the wording we have added someplace else would make this
become an automatic waiver into adult court for juveniles in this
circumstance. He did not feel that would be right at all.
MS. KNUTH said her one thought on that is that if it were a second
offense, and we did want to prosecute them in district court.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said first of all we could not do that because it
is a felony, and that would be heard in superior court.
MS. KNUTH answered that he was exactly right. She would hate for
district court to be the most effective place to have these kids,
and to lose the ability to send them there because now they have to
go to the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) on a felony
that DFYS cannot do very much about, because with their limited
resources. They have to be dealing with guns on school grounds and
serious assaults. That may have been the consideration for Legal
Services. They may have wanted a way by which we could keep going
back to district court, because at that point, district court can
impose jail. They have a broader panoply of sanctions available to
them than DFYS does.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Knuth if the committee removed Section 1
from the bill and it passed, would a minor who was apprehended in
his/her second joyriding offense be charged with a felony, as an
adult?
MS. KNUTH thought not. She thought they could under charge and say
that we were treating them as if it were their first offense.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that is the same as it currently is. Under
existing law, if a juvenile was apprehended on their second
joyriding offense, they could be charged with a felony through the
juvenile system. If we took this section out, they still could.
MS. KNUTH said the questions would be, "Could we under charge them,
as a first offender, and make them go to district court, as an
adult?" She believed the answer is yes, so we would have two
options available.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE wished to hear from the bill sponsor's
representative as to why this was initially included in the bill.
He wondered what the rationale was.
MS. VOLENDORF understood that they would have the language in there
for the person 18 years of age and older, just so that an adult
would be charged with a class A felony, and it would give
discretion to the prosecution to charge a juvenile with either a
felony in the juvenile delinquency court, or with a class A
misdemeanor again, in district court. In taking that out, she
guessed that a juvenile could be charged with a class A felony.
Number 150
MS. KNUTH said if you look at Section 6, the offense is 11.46.484
(a),(2), which is the joyriding offense. She and the first bill
drafter, Jerry Luckhaupt, agreed that Section 6 is waiving you as
an adult for (a),(2), which is the joyriding offense. Paragraph
(c) is just a sentencing provision, and it is not a different
crime, it just states what you do given the same crime, as to
whether the sentence will be a misdemeanor or a felony. It would
automatically waive a juvenile if it were a second 484 (a),(2)
offense.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the last three lines shed light on
the subject. "The minor accused of the offense specified in this
subsection shall be charged and prosecuted as an adult."
CHAIRMAN PORTER said, no, that only applies to this subsection.
Number 180
MS. KNUTH said we initially had a new crime called "juvenile
joyriding" which was parallel, and Legal Services merged it with
the existing statute. To answer your question, there is a way to
create the option of a juvenile delinquency for a second offense as
a felony, but it would not be simply by removing Section 1. They
would have to do some other drafting to take care of that problem.
CHAIRMAN PORTER did not think the bill sponsor intended what Ms.
Knuth was describing for Section 1 to do. He asked Ms. Volendorf
if that was correct.
MS. VOLENDORF answered that it was fine with Senator Leman to have
them charged with a class A misdemeanor each time, even on a
repetitive offense until they turn 18.
MS. KNUTH said it was upon the Department of Law's assurance that
we could charge them with a felony and go that route by using one
of the other options.
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that there are two other elements of a
felony that a juvenile could be charged with, but what we are doing
is allowing juveniles to be charged as adults for a misdemeanor
crime, whereas, currently, what they are getting is what can amount
to a letter of reprimand three to six months later from DFYS, which
is not accomplishing a thing. Also keep in mind that joyriding is
joyriding, whether it is a juvenile or an adult, and a 25-year old
who is caught joyriding is still just joyriding, unless these other
elements come into effect - economic damage over $500, it is still
just a misdemeanor crime.
MS. KNUTH said this is an incremental approach, and if treating
joyriding as a misdemeanor turns out not to be the answer, she has
no doubt that the legislature will be motivated to revisit the
issue. We may decide later that more measures are appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSSB 14(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and fiscal notes as
attached. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 87 - AUTHORIZING YOUTH COURTS
Number 350
ELIZABETH ROBERTS, Legislative Aide to Representative Bettye Davis,
bill sponsor, introduced HB 87. She first mentioned the Close Up
students who came in by the dozens to visit Representative Bettye
Davis and to talk about this particular bill. The Close Up
students were told to select a bill that they wanted to be passed
more than any other bill this session. HB 87 was it because the
concept of literally being tried by their peers sounded like real
democracy to them. They felt that it took the grown-ups out of the
judging position and put the kids where the grown-ups had been
before.
MS. ROBERTS informed the committee that youth courts have been in
effect in Anchorage since 1989. It is an extremely successful
program. Of the youth court participants, 188 were given an award
by the American Bar Association and $5,000 was given to the program
for having the best youth court partnership system in the United
States. It is an eight to ten week course in which all of the high
schools participate. There are 248 students in the youth court
system at the moment who act as judges, jurors, prosecutors, and
defense attorneys. It not only helps the defendant by allowing
him/her to be tried by his peers, and then not have anything on his
record, but it enables the students who are participating in youth
courts to get a real idea of what democracy in government and the
court system is all about. This legislation carries a zero fiscal
note. It is ideally suited for rural Alaska, because either one
community or several communities can participate. You can have as
many as 500 kids or as few as 30 involved.
MS. ROBERTS stated that the first youth court started in 1983 in
Augusta, Texas and is still running. There are four others, but
Anchorage has the most sophisticated one. It is the only one where
the students are the judge, the jury, and the prosecutors. They
have their own constitution and bylaws, and they meet quarterly
with various adult judges and pro-bono attorneys to talk about
fiscal responsibility and to plan their caseload. They have a
youth bar association that meets weekly to discuss issues. They
have to pass a test to be admitted into this association. This
does not cost any money, generates a great deal of community
enthusiasm, has a recidivism rate of 50 percent less than kids who
go through the regular juvenile system, gives the defendant a
second chance, and it works well. It has been working in Anchorage
for six years. Juneau is already discussing the possibility of
having one. It is a nice bill which helps a lot of people and does
not cause any problems.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY mentioned to the committee members who were
not on the HESS Committee, that they saw a very interesting film
supporting this bill. She felt it had a lot of merit and urged
passage of HB 87.
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Health and Social Services, stated that the
department supports HB 87. They have had success working with the
program in Anchorage. The department has enjoyed success with the
youth model court in Anchorage as an alternative court process for
very young first time offenders who are arrested for less serious
offenses against property. The model succeeded, for the most part,
as a function of the resources available in the Anchorage
community. The Department believes that the Anchorage program
could be replicated in other communities to the extent that there
is local community involvement that allows it to go forward.
However, our relationship with the program is simply that of a
referral agency. We do refer the juveniles to the program.
Number 430
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what the criteria for referral is in
Anchorage.
MR. LINDSTROM said he did not know in great detail, but he did know
it has to be a first offense and it has to be a very minor offense.
Usually they are offenses against property. The DFYS would likely
send a letter of reprimand, sometimes far down the road in time.
This is an option that gets a youth's attention immediately and
some immediate reinforcement that what they did, they ought not to
have done.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if both the juvenile and the parents have to
agree to use the youth court system.
MR. LINDSTROM answered that yes, there has to be concurrence all
the way around to participate in the program.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked for examples and information on specific
cases that have been through the youth court.
MS. ROBERTS stated that the director of the youth court was not
able to release any details or any of the records of the defendants
who had been through youth court at this time. They have been
having a small problem in Anchorage, because under the current
statutes, they do not have the ability to subpoena. If someone
agrees to testify and then changes his mind, there is nothing a
youth court can do. Under our bill, we have inserted the provision
for being able to subpoena a witness.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked why this was being put into Title 18, rather
than Title 47.
MS. ROBERTS said she did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted that the bill drafter, Mr. Chenoweth,
had drafted it that way.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said the bill goes to the Finance Committee next,
so he thought perhaps the sponsor could ask the drafter what the
rationale for that is. He felt it would be more appropriate under
Title 47 rather than under Title 18.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move HB 87 out of committee
with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. Hearing no
objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|