04/08/2009 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB140 | |
| HB194 | |
| HB138 | |
| HB9 | |
| HJR30 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2009
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 140
"An Act relating to juries in criminal cases; and providing for
an effective date."
- FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 194
"An Act relating to the operation of low-speed vehicles."
- MOVED CSHB 194(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 138
"An Act relating to cruelty to animals."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 9
"An Act relating to murder; authorizing capital punishment,
classifying murder in the first degree as a capital felony, and
allowing the imposition of the death penalty for certain
murders; establishing sentencing procedures for capital
felonies; and amending Rules 32, 32.1, and 32.3, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and Rules 204, 209, 210, and 212, Alaska
Rules of Appellate Procedure."
- MOVED CSHB 9(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30
Relating to the case of the United States v. Wade and to the
decision of the Attorney General of the United States with
respect to that case.
- MOVED HJR 30 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 140
SHORT TITLE: JURY NULLIFICATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
02/18/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/09 (H) JUD
03/18/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/18/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/30/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
03/30/09 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/08/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 194
SHORT TITLE: LOW-SPEED MOTOR VEHICLES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILSON
03/18/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/09 (H) TRA, JUD
03/26/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/26/09 (H) Moved CSHB 194(TRA) Out of Committee
03/26/09 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/27/09 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 3DP 3NR
03/27/09 (H) DP: DOOGAN, GRUENBERG, WILSON
03/27/09 (H) NR: JOHANSEN, MUNOZ, JOHNSON
04/08/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 138
SHORT TITLE: CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GATTO
02/18/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/09 (H) JUD, FIN
04/08/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 9
SHORT TITLE: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CHENAULT
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) JUD, FIN
02/23/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/23/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/25/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/25/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/25/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/02/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/02/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/23/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
03/23/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/23/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/23/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/30/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
03/30/09 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/06/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/08/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 30
SHORT TITLE: DEATH PENALTY FOR JOSHUA WADE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) STOLTZE
04/01/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/01/09 (H) JUD
04/08/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
RICK SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General
Central Office
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 140.
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 194.
REID HARRIS, Staff
Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 194 on
behalf of the sponsor, Representative Wilson.
GERALD HERBRANDSON
Solar Wind of Alaska
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 194.
MEGAN PASTERNACK
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 194.
CARL SPRINGER, JR., Registrar
Director's Office
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 194.
SANDRA WILSON, Staff
Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 138 on
behalf of the sponsor, Representative Gatto.
CHAVA LEE, Executive Director
Gastineau Humane Society (GHS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 138, provided
comments and expressed her hope that the bill would be passed
from committee.
KAYLA EPSTEIN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 138.
DALE BARTLETT, Deputy Manager
Animal Cruelty Issues
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
Washington D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in Support of HB 138.
NANCY K. EDLUND
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 138.
LUCINDA EDLUND
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 138.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138, and
responded to questions.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 30.
SUSAN C. ORLANSKY, Attorney at Law
Feldman Orlansky & Sanders
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to vote against HJR 30,
and provided comments.
RICH CURTNER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 30.
SUE JOHNSON, Coordinator
Alaskans Against the Death Penalty (AADP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 30.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:52 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Holmes,
Coghill, Gatto, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Dahlstrom and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting
was in progress. Representative Chenault was also in
attendance.
HB 140 - JURY NULLIFICATION
1:08:38 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 140, "An Act relating to juries in criminal
cases; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that public testimony on HB 140 was closed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the sponsor, indicated that
HB 140 is meant to provide jurors with more of an independent
voice because currently they are totally under the control of
the judge, and thus need more discretion of their own; "My
general move is to try to include the jurors in the application
of the law ... and the exoneration or conviction of people who
are charged by the state." He relayed that he favors Amendment
1, which, he posited, would address concerns regarding what he
called "renegade juries"; Amendment 1, labeled 26-LS0603\A.1,
Luckhaupt, 3/31/09, read:
Page 1, line 1, following "cases;":
Insert "amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure;"
Page 2, following line 8:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(g) Except as provided in (h) of this section,
Rule 16, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, applies
to discovery in cases where the defendant requests
that the jury be informed of the jury's power to judge
the just application of the law and to vote on the
verdict according to conscience.
(h) At least 30 days before trail, the defendant
shall disclose to the prosecution
(1) the defendant's intent to request that
the jury be informed of the jury's power to judge the
just application of the law and to vote on the verdict
according to conscience;
(2) the legal theory of the defendant's
claim that the law is unjustly applied to the
defendant;
(3) a list of witnesses, other than expert
witnesses, that the defendant is likely to call in
support of the claim that the law is unjustly applied
to the defendant."
Page 2, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section the read:
INDIRECT COURT RULE AMENDMENT. AS 12.45.017(g)
and (h), added by sec. 1 of this Act, have the effect
of amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, by requiring certain disclosures by the
defendant."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his belief that Amendment 1, by amending
Rule 16 of the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, would provide
safeguards for jury nullification.
1:14:25 PM
RICK SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General, Central Office, Criminal
Division, Department of Law (DOL), said Amendment 1 would allow
for discovery of the legal theory that's going to be presented
to the jury. Presently, both sides know what the theory [for
the prosecution] is going to be because that information is
provided in the indictment, and although the prosecution doesn't
get information about the defense's case because Alaska doesn't
have reciprocal discovery, that generally hasn't been a problem
because the prosecution can usually figure out what the factual
disputes will be. However, in instances where the defendant
seeks jury nullification, there is no way for the prosecution to
know what theory will be used in an attempt to justify the
defendant's actions in committing a crime. He indicated a
preference for having that type of discovery if HB 140 ends up
passing.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked why [Amendment 1's reciprocal
discovery] wouldn't be barred by existing Alaska Supreme Court
decisions, given that it would occur before the guilt phase of a
trial is over.
MR. SVOBODNY pointed out that Amendment 1 simply stipulates that
the prosecution shall be informed of what theory will be used in
an attempt to justify the defendant's actions in committing a
crime. He explained that in the Alaska Supreme Court case,
Scott v. State, 519 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1974), the court allowed
the State to be notified of legal defenses - theories - but not
of who the defense's witnesses would be. Under HB 140, "it'll
be cowboy time" with no one knowing beforehand what legal theory
would be presented by the defense.
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided
previously].
1:19:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the DOL would support
HB*140 if Amendment 1 were not adopted.
MR. SVOBODNY said no. In response to other questions, he
clarified that [the DOL] doesn't support HB 140, either with or
without Amendment 1, but feels that HB 140 would be "less worse"
with the adoption of Amendment 1. In response to further
questions, he acknowledged that Amendment 1 has potential
constitutional difficulties, but doesn't think it would increase
the risk that the whole bill would be found unconstitutional.
House Bill 140 is doing away with representative government, he
remarked, adding that although it is technically correct to say
that the concept of jury nullification is not inherently
unconstitutional and simply has equal protection and due process
problems, and although constitutional scholars differ on what
"deciding law" means, "under either theory, this is new." In
response to questions, he reiterated his comments regarding
Scott.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, though, that [counter to
Scott,] Amendment 1 requires the defense to provide the
prosecution with a list of the witnesses the defense will be
calling. Doesn't this increase the risk of unconstitutionality?
MR. SVOBODNY observed that there is always a risk of something
being declared unconstitutional whenever the prosecution asks
for information from the defense. "My view is, the bill will be
found unconstitutional and it is less likely that ... [Amendment
1] - if it were attached to another bill that dealt with
something else - would be found unconstitutional than the entire
idea of the bill."
1:23:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Gatto,
Lynn, and Ramras voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives
Dahlstrom, Gruenberg, and Holmes voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
1:24:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 140, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he disagrees with the argument that
passage of HB 140 would result in lawlessness, surmising that
everyone in the criminal justice system except for jurors are
currently entrusted with understanding their roles in the
system.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said, "We as a legislature determine
the law, and I think we run into a huge problem when we have
different regions of the state interpreting the laws ...
[differently]." If HB 140 were to pass, it would become common
knowledge that a person could go to a particular area of the
state and get away with certain crimes simply because of how
jurors in that area are applying the law.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he's seen this occur in situations
involving the crime of driving under the influence (DUI); jurors
that have been convicted of DUI themselves are willing to
forgive defendants charged with DUIs. "I'm very concerned about
application, here; ... I believe in trusting the citizens, but
laws are difficult to understand," he remarked, adding that
jurors would have to read all laws, which even legislators don't
do except in part.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that Amendment 1
addresses the jury's power to judge the just application of the
law.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that the appointee to the position of
attorney general, Wayne Anthony Ross, has bragged about his use
of jury nullification in a case in Kotzebue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he opposes HB 140 because it only
goes one way, and if a guilty defendant is acquitted then that
can't be cured because the case would then not be reviewable.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that he agrees with Mr. Ross regarding
jury nullification.
1:30:36 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill and Ramras
voted in favor of reporting HB 140, as amended, from committee.
Representatives Gatto, Lynn, Gruenberg, Holmes, and Dahlstrom
voted against it. Therefore, HB 140, as amended, failed to be
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote
of 2-5.
HB 194 - LOW-SPEED MOTOR VEHICLES
1:31:42 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 194, "An Act relating to the operation of low-
speed vehicles." [Before the committee was CSHB 194 (TRA).]
1:32:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
noted that HB 194 was introduced at the urging of constituents
in two of her communities, and offered that low-speed vehicles
("LSVs") are very useful in small communities such as those in
her district, and fill a transportation niche not being met by
standard passenger vehicles, which are not efficient at low
speeds or over short distances. House Bill 194 would give
smaller communities - those with [a population of less] than
35,000 - the option to allow LSVs on roads that have a maximum
speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph).
1:33:07 PM
REID HARRIS, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, added on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Wilson, that the intent of HB 194 is to increase the number of
roads available to LSVs in order to promote their use in small
communities, and that the bill does so [in part] by allowing
LSVs in certain, qualifying communities to be used on roads that
have a maximum speed limit of 45 mph; currently, LSVs cannot be
used on roads that have a maximum speed limit of more than 35
mph. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
and Alaska's Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) define an LSV as a
passenger vehicle that has four wheels, has a maximum gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,000 pounds, and can attain a
minimum speed of 20 mph and a maximum speed of 25 mph. The
NHTSA has adopted regulatory standards for LSVs that require
much of the same technology found in standard passenger
vehicles, including headlights, taillights, turn signals,
reflectors, a windshield that conforms to federal standards, and
seatbelts for all designated seats.
MR. HARRIS noted that the term "low-speed vehicle" refers to a
legal class of vehicle that meets the aforementioned standards,
and not to slow-moving vehicles such as farm, construction, or
snow-removal equipment. The bill provides a unique opportunity
for small and rural communities to allow themselves a new form
of transportation. Such vehicles are convenient and can be
cheaper for short trips than standard passenger vehicles; not
all people want to drive their full-size vehicle the short
distance to the grocery store, for example, particularly given
the high price of gasoline in rural communities. Low-speed
vehicles can reduce gasoline usage, dramatically cut down the
amount of air-borne pollution a community produces, satisfy the
demand for reduced-emission transportation, and be powered by
gasoline, electricity, or a combination of both gasoline and
electricity.
MR. HARRIS said that although there are concerns that LSVs will
cause congestion on public roads, the bill seeks to alleviate
those concerns by requiring that qualifying communities have a
population of less than 35,000 and not be connected by road to
Anchorage or Fairbanks. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that
an LSV may only cross a highway that has a maximum speed limit
greater than 45 mph if the crossing is made at an intersection
where the roads on both sides of the highway are eligible for
LSV use. In conclusion, he mentioned that the bill also
stipulates that otherwise qualifying communities must also pass
a local ordinance allowing for the operation of LSVs as provided
for in the bill; this will ensure that LSVs are welcome in the
communities that choose to accept them, and not a burden on
those communities that do not.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, noting that she believes in the intent
of HB 194, asked what position law enforcement agencies, the
DMV, and insurance companies have taken on the bill.
MR. HARRIS said he's not yet spoken with representatives from
any of those groups, but surmised that law enforcement officers
would be able to ticket any LSV that isn't complying with the
law. In response to other questions, he reiterated that LSVs
are required to have all the standard safety features that
regular passenger vehicles are required to have, and indicated
that studded tires are probably available for LSVs, and that
certain models might come with all-wheel drive and traction
control.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concern that LSVs be capable of
driving in [winter] conditions.
CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to comments, noted that existing law
already addresses LSV usage, and that HB 194 would just be
expanding that existing law.
MR. HARRIS remarked that it would be up to an LSV's owner to
decide whether he/she wanted to drive his/her LSV in less than
optimum driving conditions. In response to a question, he
reiterated that LSVs can be powered by gasoline, electricity, or
a combination of both gasoline and electricity, adding that LSVs
are required to be self propelled. In response to another
question, he offered his understanding that [Segway-type]
vehicles are not LSVs, and would probably not be practical for
the communities HB 194 is intended to address.
1:43:37 PM
GERALD HERBRANDSON, Solar Wind of Alaska, said that there are
currently 10 LSVs operating in Petersburg, with a combined
mileage of well over 10,000 miles. These LSVs are small, four-
door sedans with hatchbacks; they seat four adult passengers
comfortably; they have all the same lights that conventional
cars have; and, with snow tires or studded tires, they are very
aggressive in snow and slush, and have bypassed four-wheel drive
vehicles that have gotten stuck. The only difference between
regular vehicles and LSVs is that the LSVs go slower and
conserve energy. In Petersburg, there a couple of short
stretches of the highway that have a maximum speed limit greater
than 35 mph, and so passage of HB 194 would allow LSVs on even
those stretches, thereby making LSVs ideally suited for the
community of Petersburg and other similar communities.
MR. HERBRANDSON offered his belief that regular passenger
vehicles are not well-suited to driving short distances, whereas
LSVs are ideal for such trips, and that most drivers [in
Petersburg] generally don't drive very far when taking care of
daily errands. Low-speed vehicles are energy efficient,
convenient to use, and can be fully insured through numerous
insurance companies. He mentioned that he's given the local
police chief a ride in an LSV, and found the police chief to be
supportive of the concept of LSVs. In conclusion, he mentioned
that LSVs do have heaters, and that he appreciates the
opportunity [being provided via HB 194] for people to be more
energy conscious.
1:46:45 PM
MEGAN PASTERNACK, in response to a question, relayed that her
LSV, which she has owned for more than a year, still has less
than 3,000 miles on it. She offered her understanding that
currently there are at least nineteen LSVs in Southeast Alaska,
two in Kodiak, and possibly more throughout the rest of the
state. Her LSV is a fully enclosed vehicle with a crush-proof
body; it has lights, windshield wipers, mirrors, front wheel
drive, and turn indicators; it meets or exceeds the federal
motor vehicle safety standards for LSVs - "FMVSS 500"; and it is
fully insured. She opined that HB 194 is about much more than
just cheap transportation - it is also another much-needed step
toward helping eliminate pollution and protecting the
environment, and will help legislators, Alaska's communities,
the state of Alaska, the United States, and the world. House
Bill 194 will help those who must transit 45-mph zones for work
or other purposes and who have had reservations about owning an
LSV because of the current 35-mph limitation; if the bill
passes, such people would then be able to make the decision to
join others who are trying to [lessen] their carbon footprints.
MS. PASTERNAK said that as an LSV driver, she is very conscious
of the traffic around her, and does not impede others who wish
to go faster than her allowed speed of 25 mph; that to that end,
she waits to enter a roadway until approaching traffic [has gone
past], and pulls over whenever possible to allow other drivers
to pass her. She surmised that other LSV drivers are just as
conscientious. Many LSVs are in use in Europe, and have been
for quite some time. She offered her understanding that one of
the reasons LSVs are safe is that when involved in a crash, they
are so lightweight that they tend to just bounce away rather
than absorb the full force of the impact. House Bill 194 has
great flexibility in that it requires individual communities to
decide, based on local conditions, whether to allow LSVs to
travel in 45-mph zones. Although some have argued that owners
of LSVs won't be contributing to the building and upkeep of
roads and highways because they won't be purchasing [as much if
any] fuel and thus won't be paying the associated taxes, she
would be more than willing to pay a tax or fee specific to LSVs
when registering or renewing license tabs, she relayed.
Furthermore, she posited, her 1,200-pound LSV does far less
damage to the roads then overloaded dump trucks that traverse
them.
MS. PASTERNAK, in conclusion, opined that if legislators would
like to do more to encourage LSV usage, they should also
consider allowing LSVs to be modified so that they can go 35
mph; her LSV had that capability but the modification allowing
such had to be removed in order for her to comply with Alaska's
LSV registration and licensing requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether the DMV supports HB 194.
1:50:55 PM
CARL SPRINGER, JR., Registrar, Director's Office, Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), said
the DMV is not opposed to the bill and has the understanding
that it would only change which roads LSVs could travel on and
would have no effect on the DMV's workload. In response to
another question, he said that the two-year registration fee of
$100 is the same for LSVs as it is for regular passenger
vehicles. In response to a further question, he explained that
the federal and state definitions of what constitutes an LSV
address the minimum and maximum speeds at which an LSV can
travel, not the size or type of engine or how much horsepower it
has; if an LSV is modified to exceed that maximum speed, it
cannot be registered as an LSV in Alaska. In response to more
questions, he said that LSVs are manufactured to meet their own
standards, which are not as stringent as those of regular
passenger vehicles; that such standards [in part] address the
crash-worthiness of vehicles in head-on collisions; that he does
not have any information regarding rear-end collisions of LSVs
compared to regular passenger vehicles; that any such collisions
will most likely cause damage unless the vehicle impacting the
LSV is traveling at a very slow speed; that because LSVs are
required to have seatbelts, they can therefore also accommodate
child restraint systems; and that LSVs do not have airbags.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 194.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, relayed
that he would not be offering the amendment labeled 26-
LS0715\P.3, Luckhaupt, 4/1/09, which read:
Page 1, line 6, following "may":
Insert "operate that vehicle"
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "operate that vehicle"
Page 2, lines 3 - 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) across an intersection with [CROSS] a
highway that has a maximum speed limit greater than is
permissible [OF MORE THAN 35 MILES AN HOUR IF THE
CROSSING IS MADE AT THE INTERSECTION WITH A HIGHWAY
THAT IS AUTHORIZED] for low-speed vehicles under this
subsection."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she thought that that amendment would
clarify the one part of the bill that she found confusing.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, in response to a question, relayed that
both she and the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF) prefer the language currently in [CSHB
194(TRA)].
MR. HARRIS, in response to a question, relayed that LSVs cannot
drive on the shoulder of the road but can pull over on it in
order to let other vehicles pass; LSVs are to be operated in the
same fashion as regular passenger vehicles.
1:58:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CSHB 194(TRA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 194(TRA) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 138 - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
1:58:53 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 138, "An Act relating to cruelty to animals."
CHAIR RAMRAS moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 138, Version 26-LS0351, Luckhaupt, 4/2/09, as the
work draft. There being no objection, Version P was before the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, speaking as the sponsor, pointed out that
currently a person could be charged with a felony for destroying
a painting of a family pet, but could only be charged with a
misdemeanor for destroying the actual pet the painting is of,
and opined that this doesn't make any sense to him; HB 138,
therefore, is intended to correct this by amending the cruelty
to animals statute.
2:02:22 PM
SANDRA WILSON, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, relayed on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Gatto, that HB 138 would establish the two separate crimes of
cruelty to animals in the first degree and cruelty to animals in
the second degree. Under the proposed crime of cruelty to
animals in the first degree, knowingly inflicting severe and
prolonged physical pain or suffering on an animal, [committing
the crime of cruelty to animals in the second degree three or
more times within 10 years,] killing or injuring an animal by
use of a decompression chamber, or intentionally killing or
injuring a pet or livestock via poison would be a class C
felony, whereas under the proposed crime of cruelty to animals
in the second degree, failing - with criminal negligence - to
care for an animal and thus causing the death of or severe
physical pain or prolonged suffering to an animal, or knowingly
killing or injuring an animal with the intent to intimidate,
threaten, or terrorize another person would be a class A
misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that the proposed crime of
cruelty to animals in the first degree pertains to intentional
acts, whereas the proposed crime of cruelty to animals in the
second degree could in part pertain to unintentional acts.
MS. WILSON, in response to a question, pointed out that Section
3 of HB 138 establishes the crime of cruelty to animals in the
second degree.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, in response to questions, expressed doubt
that anyone would report the accidental death of a family pet.
MS. WILSON added that under current law, the definition of the
term "animal" [for purposes of Title 11] excludes fish, and that
[although it might not ever be reported] under both the bill and
current law, even the accidental death of a family pet would
constitute a class A misdemeanor.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked how proposed AS 1161.142(f)(3) would be
enforced; under that provision, the court could "prohibit or
limit the defendant's ownership, possession, or custody of
animals for up to 10 years.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said the enforcement of that provision
would fall to others rather than to the legislature. In
response to further questions, he offered his understanding that
the humane destruction of animals, even via the use of poison,
is exempted; the bill's primary intent is to address willful and
deliberate acts of animal cruelty.
2:10:15 PM
CHAVA LEE, Executive Director, Gastineau Humane Society (GHS),
pointed out that slitting open the belly of a guinea pig,
nailing one end of its intestines to the ground and then
watching it run around in circles is a deliberate act and
constitutes animal cruelty; currently, however, there's not much
that can be done about such behavior. Accidentally stepping on
a cat, for example, and killing it is still just an accident,
whereas throwing a bag kittens into a body of water and watching
them drown is animal cruelty. She said that although the GHS
doesn't get many calls about acts that turn out to be actual
cruelty, the GHS does get a lot of calls about acts that turn
out be the result of stupidity. With the latter type of calls,
staff attempts to educate callers about how to care for their
and their children's animals. From her perspective, she
remarked, she can see a big difference between stupidity and
cruelty: cruelty constitutes a deliberate, obvious, and
disgusting act.
MS. LEE said that that type of animal cruelty is perpetrated by
human beings committing deliberate and painful acts of violence
on innocent animals, and it is a known fact that such people
often go on to commit similar acts of violence on human beings.
She offered her hope that [the legislature] will pass HB 138,
surmising that it will put some teeth into the animal cruelty
statutes so that such crimes can be prosecuted. She noted that
not all reported instances of animal cruelty end up being
prosecuted; once such cases are investigated, they are often
found to be situations in which people are behaving stupidly
rather than intentionally cruelly.
CHAIR RAMRAS - noting the existing pressures on law enforcement,
the Alaska Court System (ACS), and the Department of Law (DOL) -
questioned at what point would pursuing animal cruelty cases
begin to encroach on the resources necessary for pursuing cases
involving crimes against a person.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that 70 percent of the abused
women at shelters say that their abuser first started abusing
animals; there is a direct link between those who abuse animals
and those who abuse women. "Perhaps a call early on would
result in no call later on," he remarked.
CHAIR RAMRAS reiterated his concern about putting pressure on
the existing criminal justice system.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG disclosed a possible conflict of
interest in that he and the next testifier are married.
2:17:52 PM
KAYLA EPSTEIN, after mentioning that she serves on two animal-
related boards, said that she is for HB 138. She then recounted
a few instances wherein animals have warned human beings of
danger and/or sacrificed themselves on their human's behalf, and
then indicated that she was providing the committee with a
picture of some Malamutes and of a cat that was burned alive.
She said that a few years ago, she learned about a police
officer who refused to charge a man for kicking a dog sufficient
to break its ribs. How can a police officer charge a man with a
misdemeanor for kicking a dog, when burning a cat alive is also
only a misdemeanor, she queried. She offered her understanding
that [law enforcement] is now being more proactive towards
animal cruelty because they now see the relationship between
animal cruelty and cruelty towards humans. Animal cruelty is
very significant in domestic violence (DV) cases, is often used
by abusers to punish their partners and children, and many women
won't leave a bad situation for fear of what their abuser will
do to their pets or livestock when they leave.
MS. EPSTEIN offered her understanding that members' packets
include a letter from a friend who's dog was seriously injured
when it attempted to protect its owner from an attacker, a man
who was well known by the police as a violent man with a
criminal record; the officer who investigated her friend's case
didn't think he could charge the attacker with anything
significant, and so suggested she not pursue charges even for
the animal abuse. Referring to a recent case involving a
drunken man who'd stabbed several of his neighbor's sled dogs,
she raised the question of what would happen if next time this
man instead goes into a school yard.
2:23:01 PM
DALE BARTLETT, Deputy Manager, Animal Cruelty Issues, The Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS), indicated that he would be
speaking in support of HB 138. He acknowledged that under both
current law and HB 138, three or more convictions for the crime
of cruelty to animals within a 10-year period would be a felony,
and that HB 138 provides that certain other types of cruelty to
animals crimes would also be a felony. Although Alaska law is
in line with most of the rest of the country - with 46 states
having felony animal cruelty laws - Alaska is the only state
that requires previous convictions in order to charge the person
with a felony.
MR. BARTLETT - with regard to the link between animal cruelty
and violence against people, particularly women - noted that the
latest research indicates that those who are capable of
horrendous acts of violence against animals are likely to be
involved in other violent crimes. For example, the Chicago
police department released a study in 2008 illustrating a
startling propensity of offenders charged with crimes against
animals to commit other violent offenses toward human victims.
In that study, investigators found that 86 of those arrested for
animal cruelty or animal fighting had two or more past arrests;
70 percent had been arrested for felonies - including homicide;
70 percent had been arrested for narcotics crimes - including
trafficking crimes; and 65 percent had been arrested for battery
crimes. A study conducted in Massachusetts of those arrested
for animal cruelty illustrates that 70 percent had been
convicted of other crimes within 10 years - either post or prior
to their animal cruelty arrest. A Canadian police study
illustrates that 70 percent of those arrested for animal cruelty
had prior records of violent crimes, including homicide.
MR. BARTLETT opined that it's clear from all this research that
those capable of atrocious acts of animal cruelty are dangerous
to society, and therefore stronger laws are needed in order to
properly deal with such people. In the largest study of serial
killers ever undertaken, nearly half admitted to committing
animal cruelty as adolescents, and over one-third admitted to
harming or killing animals as adults. Referring to earlier
comments, he opined that if a person is able to slit an animal
open and nail its intestines to the floor, then that is
indicative of a level of violent criminal behavior that most
people are simply not capable of; such an act constitutes a
significant crime. On the issue of using limited resources to
pursue cruelty to animals crimes instead of property crimes, he
said that if someone broke into his garage and stole some
property, he would be far less concerned than if that person had
broken into his garage and killed his dog.
MR. BARTLETT, in conclusion, opined that there really should be
a distinction in the law for the willful and malicious killing
of an animal. In response to a question, he remarked that
theoretically, having a stronger punishment would be a greater
deterrent, and that deterrence is not the only goal of the law.
He elaborated:
I think that ... by classifying something as a felony,
it clearly indicates that the legislature believes
that this is a serious offense, and that message is
taken up by investigators, by prosecutors, and by
judges. Often, with animal cruelty cases, one of the
biggest ... challenges we face is for ... officers and
judges who see rape and murder [cases] on a regular
basis to [be convinced] ... that these significant
animal cruelty crimes are a part of that same
paradigm ....
2:30:05 PM
NANCY K. EDLUND said that as families in society become more
dispersed, more and more people are viewing their animals as
extended family members, and so abuse of these animals, no
matter what their species, is a very serious matter to these
people. As such a person herself, she said in conclusion, she
supports HB 138.
2:30:42 PM
LUCINDA EDLUND said it has been difficult to hear examples of
severe animal cruelty and then find that they are just
misdemeanor crimes. This is really an embarrassment to her as a
human being, she remarked, adding that she doesn't know how
serious and prolonged abuse of animals cannot be taken
seriously; it's outrageous to think that such atrocities are not
felonies. In conclusion, she said she supports HB 138, and
implores the legislature to adopt HB 138 and show that the abuse
of animals is being taken very seriously.
2:32:33 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), relayed
that the DOL opposes raising the penalty for the crime of
cruelty to animals from a class A misdemeanor to a class C
felony. In 1978, the criminal code revision committee debated
this same issue, whether the crime of cruelty to animals ought
to be a felony or a misdemeanor, and although the State's first
chief prosecutor advocated for it to be a felony, the vote was
in strong opposition based on the concept of proportionality,
which is also the basis, now, for the DOL's opposition to
HB 138, particularly since in Alaska, most domestic violence
assaults are resolved only as class A misdemeanors due to a lack
of resources. This opposition doesn't mean that the crime of
cruelty to animals isn't an important or serious offense, but it
is the DOL's position that one year in jail is enough of a
penalty for such behavior.
MS. CARPENETI noted that last year, when the legislature made a
third conviction for such an offense within a 10-year period a
class C felony, that was thought to be a pretty reasonable
compromise, particularly in terms of proportionality and the way
[the DOL] deals with limited resources in the criminal justice
system. In conclusion, she said that the DOL opposes raising
the penalty for first and second convictions of this crime.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether a history of animal
cruelty is an aggravating factor.
MS. CARPENETI said it's not a provision of law, but judges do
take all evidence of past behavior into consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pondered whether another approach might
be to simply make a history of animal cruelty an aggravating
factor when sentencing someone for a felony-level crime against
a person; doing so could perhaps address the issue of escalating
behavior.
MS. CARPENETI indicated that she would research that point
further. In response to another question, she said she would
research what sentence the crime of cruelty to animals typically
results in, but surmised that most cases don't result in a
multi-year sentence, so there might be room for more serious
sentences.
2:38:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned whether the bill could be altered
so that the proposed class C felony would only apply to the most
egregious behavior.
MS. CARPENETI offered her belief that that provision of the bill
is already limited to only the most egregious behavior;
regardless, the DOL would still argue that the existing penalty
of one year in jail is adequate. In response to further
questions, she pointed out that current law already prohibits
the poisoning of pets or livestock, the torturing of animals,
and knowingly killing or injuring an animal with the intention
of intimidating, threatening, or terrorizing another person;
such behavior is currently a class A misdemeanor, and the bill,
in part, is proposing to make some of those behaviors a class C
felony.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 138, Version P, would be held over.
HB 9 - CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
2:43:08 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 9, "An Act relating to murder; authorizing
capital punishment, classifying murder in the first degree as a
capital felony, and allowing the imposition of the death penalty
for certain murders; establishing sentencing procedures for
capital felonies; and amending Rules 32, 32.1, and 32.3, Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rules 204, 209, 210, and 212,
Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure." [Before the committee was
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 9, Version 26-
LS0036\E, Luckhaupt, 2/18/09, which had been adopted as the work
draft on 2/23/09, and amended on 4/6/09.]
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that public testimony on HB 9 was closed.
2:43:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that he'd read a newspaper
article indicating that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently
ruled that [giving weight to] confessions, even voluntary ones,
if they are the product of prolonged interrogation, is
unconstitutional.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over the Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that this ruling appears to
be in conflict with the provision of Amendment 3, as amended,
that stipulated the death penalty could be sought if there is a
videotaped voluntary confession by the defendant to the murder,
and characterized this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court as a
significant one. Noting that he would be opposing passage of
HB 9, he suggested that the committee consider either removing
that potentially conflicting language from the bill or holding
the bill over in order to do more research regarding whether
that U.S. Supreme Court opinion really would impact the language
of Amendment 3, as amended.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
2:47:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that HB 9 raises life and death
issues, not only for murderers but also for potential future
victims. He then spoke a bit about religion and some religious
beliefs and stories, but acknowledged that from a religious
perspective, there don't appear to be any absolutes with regard
to the death penalty. Murder victims have no choice and receive
no trial; in contrast, murderers make the choice to kill - and
such choices have consequences - and they receive a trial. At
trial, when defendants are found guilty of murder, the odds are
that they actually are guilty. He likened having the death
penalty to allowing for abortion, and surmised that from a
logical perspective, if one is provided for, then the other
should be provided for as well. Being prolife, which he is, he
remarked, means protecting citizens from murderers, and many
believe that capital punishment provides the best way of
providing that protection. On the question of whether capital
punishment is a deterrent, he said he doesn't know if that is
really the case, but noted that although most statistics
indicate that it is not, once a person has been executed, that
certainly deters him/her from killing in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN observed that ample evidence provided
indicates that many innocent people have been wrongfully
convicted and sentenced to death; odds are, therefore, that if
Alaska institutes capital punishment, innocent people will be
put to death by the State, in other words, in part, by
legislators. He added: "Would any of us here, at this
committee table, pull the switch or personally inject the
poison, inject that needle? If we can't do that maybe we
shouldn't ask somebody else to do it." A person serving a life
sentence but later found to be innocent could be released from
prison and perhaps compensated to some small degree. However,
an innocent person that's been executed can't be resurrected.
Some have argued that a life sentence without possibility of
parole is worse punishment than execution, but families of
murder victims suffer their own life sentence - a lifetime
sentence of sorrow. From a practical standpoint, if the State
executes several murderers but no deterrence results, at least
those dead murderers won't murder again, but if murderers are
not executed and then kill again, then the State will, in
effect, have enabled the murder of more innocent people.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered an example of one murderer who'd
killed a 14-year-old girl, and then, after he was released from
prison, murdered a mother of three children; because this
murderer was not executed for the murder of the girl, another
person was murdered. Can a sentence of life in prison without
the possibility of parole take the place of capital punishment
and provide for the desired level of public safety? Sure it
can. But can the judicial system be depended upon to protect
people via appropriate sentencing? "I have my doubts on that,"
he remarked, surmising that if the judicial system did a better
job of protecting the public's safety, then perhaps there would
be less demand for the death penalty. Furthermore, he queried,
if a judge sets a violent criminal with multiple prior offenses
loose on society, and that criminal commits additional heinous
crimes, should that judge then be removed from the bench, suffer
liability, or be put in jail himself/herself as an enabler?
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, on the issue of whether the death penalty
would be disproportionately applied to minorities, opined that
it is probably more accurate to instead say that the death
penalty would be disproportionately applied to poor folks, who,
regardless of their race, won't have the money to hire a "legal
dream team." Being a member of a minority, or being poor, or
living in a horrific environment is problematic, but it's no
excuse for committing crimes. "Unfortunately, we do live in an
imperfect world, where prejudice too often translates [into] ...
gross unfairness, ... and bigots still exist, ... [but] that's
reality " he added. With regard to the issue of cost and the
question of whether a life sentence without the possibility of
parole is more expensive than the death penalty, he said he
doesn't care about which is more expensive because he believes
that cost shouldn't be the determining factor for whether or not
to establish capital punishment - life shouldn't have a price
tag.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN also questioned how much sense it makes to
impose a death penalty but then not carry it out for 10-20 years
[due to numerous appeals]; to be any kind of a deterrent, the
punishment should come shortly after the sentence. He relayed
that when he ran for U.S. Congress in 1972 in California, he
supported capital punishment and stated so in his campaign
literature; however, even then, he believed that any capital
punishment law should be applied fairly and be limited to only
the most egregious and most heinous of crimes, and that's still
his position today. He said that his sympathy for victims and
their families is boundless. Although imprisonment without the
possibility of parole sounds good, in today's tolerant judicial
system, how many judges can be trusted to put murders in prison
and then truly throw away the key? Probably not enough, he
surmised.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN recalled prior testimony indicating that it
is quite difficult to empanel a jury for a major trial in Bush
Alaska due to the limited number of residents and close family
relationships in such areas. He also offered his understanding
that any jury members empanelled for a capital punishment case
must be "death penalty qualified." Such a requirement would
narrow the pool of prospective jurors in rural Alaska even
further. Moreover, if such a jury ever were empanelled, would
that really be a jury of one's peers, since all jurors would
have to be in favor of the death penalty? He questioned whether
to truly be a jury of one's peers, jurors empanelled for a death
penalty case should instead be made up of people with differing
views on the subject - just like in everyday life - and whether
this issue could raise constitutional concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that the bill prohibits the execution
of the mentally retarded and defines mental retardation as an
intelligence quotient of 70 or below. In other words, when it
comes time to receive a sentence, if the defendant has an
intelligence quotient of 71, then he/she will be executed, but
not if he/she has an intelligence quotient 70. This raises the
question of who would be picking the intelligence quotient test,
from the many that are out there, that would be used to
determine mental retardation for purposes of possibly
instituting the death penalty. Would an intelligence quotient
of 70 on one test also be an intelligence quotient of 70 on
another test? Furthermore, which type of intelligence would be
being tested? His concerns about this issue, he remarked, have
not yet been answered to his satisfaction, and opined that this
issue needs to be addressed before the State starts putting
people to death. These aspects of the bill and the complex
questions surrounding them are another illustration of the
practical difficulty of writing fair capital punishment
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN concluded by saying that although he worries
about the effectiveness of lifelong imprisonment compared to
capital punishment, he is not convinced that any legislature in
the world is capable of creating capital punishment legislation
that has the level of fairness that should be demanded of it
before it's used, and by saying that he would be voting "No" on
HB 9.
3:01:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG provided members with a copy of the
aforementioned newspaper article regarding the recent U.S.
Supreme Court ruling that even a voluntary confession may not be
used in federal court if the defendant was held in questioning
for more than six hours before he/she made the confession,
citing the fact that there have been a number of people who've
confessed to a crime but were later proven to be innocent by DNA
evidence and had simply confessed because of undue police
pressure. This highlights three points: one, that scientific
evidence can change; two, that legal standards can change; and
three, that they can be changed via a single vote on the U.S.
Supreme Court. The issue, here, is finality: when all is said
and done, a death sentence [that has been carried out] is final
- there is no reconsideration, there is no appeal, and it cannot
be undone to correct a mistake. He said he would strongly
support legislation that established lifetime sentences without
possibility of parole, because then if something changes,
justice in an individual case could still be provided for. The
U.S. Supreme Court ruling, with its limitation of six hours,
sets a bright line demarcation for ease of administration, but
in the case of HB 9, such a ruling and the difference of a mere
15 minutes of police questioning could mean the difference
between taking someone's life or not.
3:05:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the issue of confidence in the
people who operate the judicial system has been raised, and
indicated his belief that the bill's standard of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt will address that issue. Noting that there are
several advocacy groups standing up for the rights of those on
death row, he questioned who would be standing up for the rights
of the innocent people who were murdered, particularly given the
extensive judicial process already in place for those accused of
murder compared to the lack of any such process afforded to
murder victims or their families. He said he thinks instituting
the death penalty, regardless of the costs involved, is the way
to rectify the apparent lack of recognition afforded murder
victims and their families. In conclusion, Representative
Coghill added:
I think if we move forward with this bill, what we do
is we make our system stand up and take note of its
failures, number one, because if we're failing people
who are sentenced to death, then we're certainly
failing people who are sentenced to life in prison -
... and they never even get a second look, nobody goes
out and takes a look at ... [their cases]. So I think
it's good for the justice system to have to bear the
responsibility, and therefore I'm voting for the bill.
CHAIR RAMRAS agreed, adding that he is satisfied with having had
Amendment 3, as amended, adopted, and with moving the bill
forward.
3:10:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES relayed that for a variety of reasons, she
would be voting against HB 9. One reason pertains to the cost
of the bill; the fiscal notes, which she surmised are probably
conservative, total about $85 million in the first five years,
and that's before the State would even come close to actually
executing someone under the bill. Moreover, because the fiscal
notes only estimate costs over the next five years, they don't
include a lot of the implementation costs because they wouldn't
occur within the first five years. For that same money, there
are a lot of other things the legislature could be doing. New
Jersey, in recent years, repealed its death penalty laws, but
only after spending about $.25 billion and never actually
executing anybody, and New Mexico has also recently repealed its
death penalty laws.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over the Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she is also opposed to HB 9 because
according to information from other states, it's pretty clear
that innocent people will be executed despite any procedural
safeguards that might be put in place - as long as its humans
running the system, there are going to be errors, some due to
problems with contaminated biological samples, and some due to
problems with false confessions. Testimony has indicated that
racial elements were at play back when Alaska had the death
penalty, and so she is worried that the death penalty will again
be disproportionately applied to minorities. She said she is
also concerned about the requirement that jurors be "death
penalty certified," concurring that defendants would be
disenfranchised because such a jury would not really be a jury
of one's peers.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she is also worried about the moral
issues raised, and that the bill won't actually be applied only
to the most heinous of crimes because what constitutes heinous
would be hard to categorize in law. She said she has concern
that the bill is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons,
among them that it [doesn't specifically prohibit] the execution
of a minor, and, with the adoption of Amendment 2, now contains
a reciprocal discovery provision. Another concern she said she
has is that the ongoing appeal process for death penalty cases
will simply run the families of victims through the wringer over
and over again when appeals come up.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES concluded by saying that in the end, she
is deeply troubled by the potential for a system that is run by
humans in all of its phases to result in human errors with
regard to only executing those who are actually guilty, and so
she will therefore be voting "No" on the bill, and urges other
members to do the same.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
3:15:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered his understanding that the cost of
incarceration can at times be even higher than the cost of an
execution, and indicated a belief that because other states have
the death penalty, that Alaska's legislation will be found
constitutional. He said he wants certain people to know that
the penalty for heinous murders will be the harshest of
punishments - execution - surmising that it is the fear of
possibly being executed that will deter crime. He expressed
favor with having a death penalty process that takes a long
time, because that will give plenty of opportunity for [an
innocent] person to be exonerated before he/she is executed.
3:17:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said she has some reservations about
HB 9, acknowledging that the potential for human error is one of
the biggest risks that all legislation faces. She said she
believes, however, that there are some acts so heinous that the
person committing them is more of an animal than a human being,
and so she will therefore be voting "Yes" on HB 9.
3:19:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 9, Version 26-LS0036\E, Luckhaupt,
2/18/09, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVES HOLMES and GRUENBERG objected.
3:19:20 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gatto, Dahlstrom,
Coghill, and Ramras voted in favor of reporting the proposed CS
for HB 9, Version 26-LS0036\E, Luckhaupt, 2/18/09, as amended,
from committee. Representatives Lynn, Gruenberg, and Holmes
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 9(JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
HJR 30 - DEATH PENALTY FOR JOSHUA WADE
3:19:46 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30, Relating to the case of the
United States v. Wade and to the decision of the Attorney
General of the United States with respect to that case.
3:20:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
relayed that HJR 30 has a very narrow focus on a specific issue,
that of asking the federal government to consider whether
capital punishment should be a sentencing option in the case of
Joshua Wade. He noted that the language on page 2 lines 13-22,
read:
WHEREAS the United States Department of Justice has
created a capital case review procedure to assist the
United States Attorney General in making decisions on
whether to seek the death penalty; and
WHEREAS the capital case review procedure requires
each United States Attorney to submit for review all
cases involving a pending charge of an offense for
which the death penalty is a legally authorized
sanction, regardless of whether or not that United
States Attorney recommends seeking the death penalty;
and
WHEREAS, during the capital case review, a review
committee makes a recommendation to the United States
Attorney General as to whether the death penalty
should be sought in a case; and
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE noted that the language on page 2, lines
26-28 read:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature urges
the United States Attorney General to consider all the
evidence and, if justified by the evidence, carefully
consider the death penalty as a sentencing option for
Joshua Wade.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE explained that under current federal
procedure, the issue of whether a particular case warrants
consideration of the death penalty as a sentencing option must
be determined before the trial starts, and that HJR 30 is merely
a statement that the legislature wants to have the death penalty
be considered in this situation. In conclusion, he mentioned
that he has not yet spoken with the victims' families about
HJR 30.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern about getting
involved in ongoing litigation in a criminal case, in that doing
so would be setting a precedent such that the legislature's
involvement in a variety of cases would be requested in the
future.
3:27:29 PM
SUSAN C. ORLANSKY, Attorney at Law, Feldman Orlansky & Sanders,
asked the committee to vote against HJR 30, adding that her
position on the resolution is not based on whether the U.S
attorneys prosecuting Joshua Wade should or should not seek the
death penalty, but rather on a separation of powers issue and
division of responsibility. She surmised that the legislature
would not appreciate the U.S. Attorney's Office telling the
legislature how to do its job, even if such advice were to come
in the form of a mild resolution. Similarly, she said, she
thinks it is not appropriate for the legislature to seek to
influence the handling of a particular criminal case. The U.S.
Attorney's Office already has standards, guidelines, and
procedures for determining when to treat a case as a capital
case; such a determination influences the office's budget, its
allocation of manpower, may require a decision to not
investigate or prosecute someone else, and reflects its
obligation to have consistent, nationwide standards so that the
government can't be accused of behaving in an arbitrary or
unfair fashion when deciding to ask for the most extreme
penalty.
MS. ORLANSKY pointed out that those outside of the U.S.
Attorney's Office don't have all the facts that weigh into such
decision making, and so for the legislature to start telling
prosecutors what to consider or how to exercise their discretion
in a particular case appears to her to set a bad precedent. She
surmised that everyone has recently seen how high profile cases
can be mishandled, especially when decisions are rushed or when
prosecutors are perhaps influenced by a desire to make
headlines. Winning a conviction or a particular penalty doesn't
accomplish anything if the process is flawed and has to be set
aside. If the goal is to see Joshua Wade prosecuted fairly and
effectively and be punished appropriately if convicted, then the
best approach would be to let the prosecutors do their job in a
professional manner uninfluenced by public pressures. She said
she is not aware of the legislature having previously taken a
public position on how federal or state prosecutors should
handle a particular case, and she thinks, therefore, that the
legislature's not having done so reflects a wise deference and
appropriate perspective on the different roles of different
branches of government. In conclusion, she urged the committee
to follow that same course and vote against HJR 30.
3:30:30 PM
RICH CURTNER said he would be speaking against HJR 30, opining
that it sets bad public policy by attempting to influence
ongoing litigation and the discretion of the [U.S. Attorney]
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has strict protocol for
handling [death penalty cases], and HJR 30 could be seen as
possibly having influenced the U.S. Attorney's Office decisions.
House Joint Resolution 30 sends some bad messages to the
citizens of Alaska: one, it disregards the verdict of the 12
Alaskan jurors who initially found Mr. Wade not guilty; two, it
makes an assumption about the State's criminal justice system
and the presumption of innocence, since Mr. Wade has not yet
been convicted, and so the resolution could be viewed as an
attempt to presume guilt and influence the system; and three, it
could potentially result in a change of venue due to additional
pretrial publicity. In conclusion, he pointed out that HJR 30
would be speaking to the same people that prosecuted then U.S.
Senator Ted Stevens, and opined that caution should be taken
whenever the legislature proposes any resolution that could be
viewed as an attempt to influence the DOJ's treatment of ongoing
litigation.
3:33:22 PM
SUE JOHNSON, Coordinator, Alaskans Against the Death Penalty
(AADP), said that HJR 30 appears to involve one branch of
government - the legislative branch - attempting to influence
another branch of government - the judicial branch. The federal
government already has a thoughtful process in place that allows
a criminal case to be elevated to the level of a death penalty
case. She said she thinks that it would therefore be very
inappropriate for the legislature to get involved in such a
decision or to even be perceived as getting involved. She also
pointed out that many family members of murder victims are very
opposed to executing those who have killed their loved ones.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she would be voting against HJR 30
because she feels it would be setting a bad precedent for
legislators to be weighing in on criminal cases.
CHAIR RAMRAS, having previously ascertained that no one else
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 30.
3:35:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HJR 30 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Coghill,
Gatto, and Ramras voted in favor of reporting HJR 30 from
committee. Representatives Lynn, Gruenberg, and Holmes voted
against it. Therefore, HJR 30 was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
3:36:41 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:36 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB138 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 01 HB194 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| HB140 Amendment A.1.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 140 |
| 02 HB138 CS version P.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 03 HB138 version S.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 04 HB138 DOC FN.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 05 HB138 LAW-CRIM-FN.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 06 HB138 Lettrs of SupportOpposition.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 02 HB194 Bill version P.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| 03 HB194 DOT FN.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| 04 HB194 Backup.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| 05 HB194 Amendment P.3.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| HJR 30 version R.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |