02/26/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB331 | |
| HB52 | |
| HB323 | |
| HB138 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 323 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 331 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 26, 2010
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Lindsey Holmes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 331
"An Act relating to funding for youth courts; and relating to
accounting for criminal fines."
- MOVED CSHB 331(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 52
"An Act authorizing psychological counseling for jurors serving
in criminal trials who are traumatized by graphic evidence or
testimony."
- MOVED HB 52 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 323
"An Act increasing the number of superior court judges
designated for the third judicial district; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 323 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 138
"An Act relating to cruelty to animals."
- MOVED CSHB 138(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 331
SHORT TITLE: YOUTH COURTS AND CRIMINAL FINES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MUNOZ
02/08/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/10 (H) JUD, FIN
02/24/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/24/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/24/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/25/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/25/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/25/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/26/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 52
SHORT TITLE: POST-TRIAL JUROR COUNSELING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KERTTULA
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) JUD, FIN
02/26/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 323
SHORT TITLE: INCREASING NUMBER OF SUPERIOR CT JUDGES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST
02/03/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/03/10 (H) JUD, FIN
02/19/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/19/10 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/26/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 138
SHORT TITLE: CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
SPONSOR(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
04/08/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/18/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/18/10 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/26/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
T. TERRY HARVEY, Staff
Representative Cathy Munoz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 331 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Munoz.
TIANA PETERSON
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked a question during discussion of
HB 331.
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 52.
HANNA McCARTY, Staff
Representative Beth Kerttula
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 52 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Kerttula.
MINDY LOBAUGH
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As a former juror, provided comments during
discussion of HB 52.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 323 on behalf of the
administration.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 323.
THOMAS REIKER, Staff
Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Gatto, presented the proposed committee substitute (CS) for
HB 138, Version T.
KRIS SELL, Lieutenant
Juneau Police Department (JPD)
City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ);
President
Capital City Chapter - Juneau
Alaska Peace Officers Association (APOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 138, provided
comments and spoke in support of increased penalties for crimes
of cruelty to animals.
KAYLA EPSTEIN, Member
Animal Control Advisory Board
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 138.
SANDY SAMANIEGO, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 138.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander
A Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a comment during discussion of
HB 138.
TIANA PETERSON
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a comment during discussion of
HB 138.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:47 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Ramras,
Gruenberg, Dahlstrom, Herron, and Lynn were present at the call
to order. Representatives Gatto and Holmes were excused.
HB 331 - YOUTH COURTS AND CRIMINAL FINES
1:09:50 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 331, "An Act relating to funding for youth
courts; and relating to accounting for criminal fines."
1:10:23 PM
T. TERRY HARVEY, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Munoz,
again explained that HB 331 offers a means by which Alaska's
youth courts could be funded; specifically, the bill authorizes
an appropriation of a portion of the criminal fines collected
[by the Alaska Court System (ACS)]. Youth courts provide a very
important alternative in Alaska's juvenile justice system (JJS).
He mentioned that the sponsor is amenable to a forthcoming
amendment intended to address members' concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG began describing Amendment 1.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:11 p.m. to 1:12 p.m.
1:12:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 1,
which would add to page 1, line 10, the words "up to" between
the words "appropriate" and "25"; the new language on lines 10-
11 would then in part read, "The legislature may appropriate up
to 25 percent of the fines".
CHAIR RAMRAS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG proffered that Amendment 1 would
eliminate any possible misinterpretation of the bill, in that it
would clarify that any appropriation under the bill could also
be less 25 percent.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:14 p.m. to 1:17 p.m.
MR. HARVEY, in response to a question, acknowledged that in his
youth, had he been able to go before a youth court, it might
have benefited him.
1:18:44 PM
TIANA PETERSON questioned how many students in Alaska have
participated in a youth court.
MR. HARVEY relayed that although he doesn't have the exact
number, he's heard that about 1,000 [students] have, adding that
the youth court program has been very well utilized in Alaska.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that youth courts in Alaska have an average
recidivism rate of 8 percent. He offered his understanding that
for every misdemeanant juvenile who's gone before a youth court,
the ACS has saved about $10,000 and is therefore able to focus
more on felony-level cases.
CHAIR RAMRAS then removed his objection to Amendment 1. There
being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:21:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 331, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 331(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:21 p.m. to 1:24 p.m.
HB 52 - POST-TRIAL JUROR COUNSELING
1:25:04 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 52, "An Act authorizing psychological counseling
for jurors serving in criminal trials who are traumatized by
graphic evidence or testimony."
1:25:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 52 was engendered by the experiences of a
constituent who'd sat on the jury in the Rachelle Waterman
murder trial, a particularly difficult case; her constituent had
suggested that it might be a good idea for the State to provide
psychological counseling to jurors who hear such cases in order
to alleviate the trauma they experience when hearing testimony
and evidence about particularly heinous crimes. In conclusion,
she said she would appreciate the committee's support of HB 52.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:27 p.m. to 1:31 p.m.
1:31:56 PM
HANNA McCARTY, Staff, Representative Beth Kerttula, Alaska State
Legislature, explained on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Kerttula, that HB 52's proposed AS 12.45.018(a) provides that a
trial judge may offer not more than 10 hours of post-trial
psychological counseling without charge to a juror who serves on
a trial involving extraordinarily graphic, gruesome, or
emotional evidence or testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, noting that he supports the concept of
the bill, questioned whether the term, "extraordinarily" as used
in the bill is already defined in statute.
MS. McCARTY relayed that she would have to research that point.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA opined that it is necessary to include
that term because there could be a lot of other types of trials
that involve graphic, gruesome, or emotional evidence or
testimony. House Bill 52 is intended to apply to extremely
graphic, extremely gruesome, or extremely emotional
evidence/testimony. She surmised that as used in the bill, the
term, "extraordinarily" would be interpreted as having the
normal dictionary definition.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON questioned who would determine whether
testimony or evidence is extraordinarily graphic, gruesome, or
emotional.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that it would be the trial
judge who would make that determination.
MS. McCARTY went on to explain that HB 52's proposed AS
12.45.018(b) specifies which crimes the trials for which could
warrant post-trial psychological counseling for jurors. Those
crimes include: murder under AS 11.41.100 and AS 11.41.110,
manslaughter under AS 11.41.120, criminally negligent homicide
under AS 11.41.130, felonious assault under AS 11.41.200-220,
and a sexual offense under AS 11.41.410-460. She also explained
that HB 52's proposed AS 12.45.018(c)(1) states that the
counseling must occur not later than 180 days after the jury is
dismissed; and that HB 52's proposed AS 12.45.018(b)(2)-(3)
states that the counseling may be provided by the court system,
by a state agency, or by contract, and that it may be either
individual or group counseling.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, on the issue of the definition of the
term, "extraordinarily", predicted that the court would
determine on a case-by-case basis whether a particular trial
warranted post-trial psychological counseling.
1:39:20 PM
MINDY LOBAUGH remarked that HB 52 represents a bridge, a bridge
that she and many other jurors did not have at the end of a
trial. She went on to say:
You arrive at the court, given detailed instructions
of what is expected of you as a juror and how the
process of the trial will work. What the court system
does not do is transition jurors out of the process
after a trial. It is not uncommon to have major
criminal trials run for many days. As you know, I
served on the Rachelle Waterman trial four years ago,
and it lasted approximately ... 10 days. For me, I
arrived open and ready to do my civic duty as a juror,
and by the end of the trial, I left there as a victim,
feeling closed, confused, and very traumatized by the
burden of knowledge I now carried.
For 10 days, prosecutors went into great detail to
help the jurors relive the events of an unsuspecting
mother getting abducted from her home, tortured, and
finally murdered. It was our duty to determine if the
defendant, her daughter, was guilty of masterminding
this tragedy against a woman who was a pillar in her
community. I am here to tell you the media does not
even come close to covering the depth of this trial.
As a juror, we had access to piles of e-mails that
detailed out various ways these men planned to kill
the mother; the physical evidence; the photographs;
and, of course, the hours of testimony that we sat
through.
For quite some time during and following that trial,
eating, for me, was a near impossibility because of
how sickened I was from this experience. To my
friends and family, I became a stranger, and each
night I prayed myself to sleep. One of my fellow
jury-mates was pregnant with her second child - she
had shared the ultrasound pictures with us early on;
by the end of the trial, she lost her baby and had to
be excused. When this trial ended with a hung jury, I
turned to the presiding judge and I asked if the
courts offer some kind of counseling or process to
help jurors deal with this traumatizing information.
The answer was no.
For me, it was like having a door slammed in my face,
and then you turn around and you find there's no
bridge to help me return to the life that I had before
this trial, ... a life that did not hold this kind of
dark knowledge. It was at this point I felt the court
had failed me as a juror doing my civic duty. Please
help me to build the bridge by supporting HB 52 -
post-trial jury counseling. I may not have found
closure with [respect] ... to this trial, but maybe
you can bridge that for the jurors doing their civic
duties in the future, by passing HB 52.
1:43:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM noted that while that trial was going
on, it even affected many of the people who worked in the
Capitol, right across the street from the courthouse, and
surmised that the media accounts of that trial couldn't have
accurately portrayed what the jurors must have been going
through.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that he has sat on several
coroner's juries - once having had to declare a friend of his
dead - and that sitting on such juries can also be traumatizing.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 52.
1:45:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 52 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for the purpose of demonstrating a
roll call vote.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Herron,
Lynn, Gruenberg, and Ramras voted in favor of reporting HB 52
from committee. No one voted against it. Therefore, HB 52 was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote
of 5-0.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:46 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.
HB 323 - INCREASING NUMBER OF SUPERIOR CT JUDGES
1:50:17 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 323, "An Act increasing the number of superior
court judges designated for the third judicial district; and
providing for an effective date."
1:50:49 PM
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Administrative Staff,
Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System
(ACS), explained on behalf of the administration that HB 323
would add a new superior court judge position to the third
judicial district - that which includes Anchorage. This
proposed addition must occur through statute because it's the
statutes that establish how many judges there are in a given
judicial district. It is the ACS's intention, he relayed, to
have the new judge preside over civil cases, such as child in
need of aid (CINA) cases, because the amount of time the courts
are spending on them has increased substantially, in part due to
the fact that more of them are being heard in their entirety by
superior court judges rather than by standing masters acting as
assistants to the superior court. This change in the ACS's
process provides for a much better case model, allowing the
presiding judge to have a much better understanding of the
families involved. Another reason there has been an increase in
the CINA case workload is that there has also been an increase
in the number of what he termed "status hearings" - derived from
the therapeutic court model; status hearings help keep the
families on track and increase the likelihood of their success
in getting their kids back - the ultimate goal of the entire
CINA process.
MR. WOOLIVER explained that the ACS's workload has also
increased due to the fact that there has been an increase in the
number of unrepresented litigants addressing the court in family
law cases. He surmised that one of the biggest reasons more
people are choosing to litigate their family law matters without
the assistance of counsel is cost. Such cases, however, result
in a lot more work for the court because although they can be
expensive, attorneys help cases move along in many different
ways - they know the legal issues involved, they know how to
file motions, they know when to file motions, and they know how
to focus the court's attention [on legally relevant issues]. In
contrast, unrepresented litigants don't necessarily have that
knowledge, and so it requires a lot of judicial time to help
such litigants through the process. He mentioned that in
addition to, at some point, requesting more judges, the ACS is
also intending to implement other procedural changes in how it
handles pro se cases in particular, and would be attempting to
hire more staff to help better manage pro se cases.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
1:55:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked what the proposed new judge's
caseload would be.
MR. WOOLIVER said that even with the new judge, the caseload
would be about 600 cases per judge.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he is very much in favor
of expanding the use of [judges pro tempore], which could
involve training suitable members of the bar to serve as [judges
pro tempore]. He suggested that the ACS consider pursuing that
option; it wouldn't cost very much, it would speed the judicial
system along, and it would provide [extra] judges.
MR. WOOLIVER reiterated that it is the statutes that determine
who gets to serve as a judge. Furthermore, judges must be
appointed by the governor, and so, currently, the ACS uses
retired judges as judges pro tempore. To allow a non-appointed
person to serve as a judge pro tempore would require a statutory
change. In response to a question, he explained that although
the ACS does use special masters occasionally, it doesn't do so
on routine cases.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that Mr. Wooliver ask the ACS
to consider making a change to the Alaska Rules of Court so that
the use of such people could be expanded.
MR. WOOLIVER agreed to do so. In response to a question about
the ACS's fiscal note for HB 323, he explained that the biggest
single cost would be for the new judge - $257,000 for salary and
benefits; that every judge has an in-court clerk, a law clerk,
and an administrative assistant - $61,400, $60,400, and $61,400,
respectively, for salary and benefits; and that there is a "one-
time" cost for the necessary equipment - [$33,800]. He
mentioned that the necessary capital costs were already included
in last year's capital budget.
2:03:33 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), in response to
a question, said that the PDA has no particular concern
regarding the proposed addition of a superior court judge
position to the third judicial district, but predicted that that
addition could put added pressure on the PDA due to it then
having insufficient personnel.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 323.
2:04:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 323 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 323 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:05 p.m. to 2:07 p.m.
HB 138 - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
[Contains brief mention that Version T of HB 138 would act as a
House companion bill to SB 214, and that the provisions of those
two bills along with the provisions of HB 6 might be
incorporated into a single vehicle.]
2:07:40 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 138, "An Act relating to cruelty to animals."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 138, Version 26-LS0351\P, Luckhaupt, 4/2/09, which had
been adopted as the work draft on 4/8/09.]
2:07:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 138, Version 26-LS0531\T, Luckhaupt,
2/4/10, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON objected.
2:08:38 PM
THOMAS REIKER, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Gatto,
explained that Version T would bring HB 138 in line with, and
make it a house companion bill to, SB 214, sponsored by Senator
Wielechowski. He indicated that under Version T, killing an
animal through the use of poison or a decompression chamber, or
knowingly inflicting severe and prolonged physical pain or
suffering would be a class C felony; and, for a first offense
within 10 years, negligently causing the death or severe
physical pain or prolonged suffering of an animal, or killing or
injuring an animal] with the intent to intimidate or terrorize
another person would be class A misdemeanor. He noted that
Version T no longer proposes to establish the crimes of cruelty
to animals in the first degree and cruelty to animals in the
second degree.
2:10:22 PM
KRIS SELL, Lieutenant, Juneau Police Department (JPD), City &
Borough of Juneau (CBJ); President, Capital City Chapter -
Juneau, Alaska Peace Officers Association (APOA), relayed that
on behalf of the JPD, the CBJ, and the APOA, she would be
speaking in support of the increased penalties for crimes of
cruelty to animals as proposed via HB 138. At 8:56 a.m. this
morning, she recounted, the JPD received a call from a woman
asking for help because her husband verbally abuses her and
physically abuses her dog; the police report stated that the
husband kicks the dog and locks it in the bathroom for days, and
that two days ago, the husband told his wife that he had a
bullet for the dog. The woman was uncooperative with the
investigation, however, because she didn't have any other place
to go where she could also take her dog. Under HB 138, the
officers could have investigated this incident as laying the
groundwork for a felony charge in the future when the
perpetrator's behavior escalated.
LIEUTENANT SELL recounted that she'd once worked a serial
domestic violence (DV) case involving a man who was beating his
wife and terrorizing his children. During one assault on his
family, the man was raging at his wife when his attention was
drawn to the family's pet bird because it was making noise, and
so, wanting to show his family that when he talked, everybody
had to be quiet, he grabbed the bird out if its cage and threw
it against the wall, breaking its wing. At trial, the jury
members were sickened by the man's behavior; even without having
been shown any studies illustrating the link between animal
abuse and DV, the jurors knew intuitively, as would most people,
that a man who would abuse a helpless animal would have no
boundaries preventing him from abusing people. The perpetrator
in this incident, however, didn't receive any significant
consequences for harming the bird, but had HB 138 been in place,
his actions might have warranted more jail time than he did get.
LIEUTENANT SELL pointed out that a lot of studies illustrate the
link between animal abuse and DV and other violent crimes - it's
just a known fact in her line of work - but what sticks in her
mind, she relayed, is a case involving a large angry man who
would use anything within his reach to terrorize his family - a
very small woman and her two young daughters. Equally well-
documented is the link between children and teens involved in
animal abuse and how such people then continue to go on to
commit violence against people, including committing serial
murder. Some cited examples of such people include Jeffrey
Dahmer; Albert DeSalvo - the Boston Strangler; and Dennis Rader
- the BTK killer. A 1999 article in the Boston Globe described
how Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - responsible for the
Columbine High School massacre in which twelve students and one
teacher were killed and 21 other students were injured - used to
horrify their classmates with descriptions of how they mutilated
animals, and how the two boys, during the massacre, taunted many
of their victims before they shot them.
LIEUTENANT SELL, in conclusion, proffered that if crimes of
cruelty to animals were taken more seriously, perhaps someone
would have followed up on the animal torture incidents described
by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and maybe the massacre could
have been avoided. In response to a question, she pointed out
that when someone abuses an animal in order to intimidate,
threaten, or terrorize another person - as outlined under AS
11.61.140(a)(5) - it's a form of domestic violence. The animal
being hurt or killed in such situations is not really the
intended target - the animal and the damage inflicted on it are
simply being used to control the perpetrator's family. For
example, a DV perpetrator will kill the family dog in front of
the children in order to keep them in line. The law enforcement
community, she assured the committee, understands the nuances of
pets being used as tools to terrorize people. Again, the intent
of the perpetrators in such situations is much greater than
simply targeting an animal for abuse.
2:16:35 PM
MR. REIKER indicated that Version T maintains existing statutory
proportionality with regard to abusive actions taken against
animals, and abusive actions taken against people, and that the
intent is to stop people from escalating their abusive behavior
then towards other people. In response to questions, he assured
the committee that existing statute provides exemptions for
accepted veterinary practices and animal husbandry practices,
dog mushing and pulling contests, rodeos and stock contests;
that Version T would not be amending those exemptions; and that
someone could still choose to euthanize an ill animal
himself/herself as long as he/she could show, if a complaint is
filed, that the animal was sick and that it didn't suffer while
being euthanized. He relayed that the sponsor worked
extensively with the Alaska Farm Bureau to address its concerns,
and that the Alaska Farm Bureau now supports both HB 138 and SB
214.
MR. REIKER, in response to questions, indicated that the
sponsors of HB 138, SB 214, and HB 6 are considering
incorporating the provisions of all three bills into a single
vehicle. In response to questions regarding an incident that
occurred recently in Houston, Alaska, he indicated that existing
statute addressing the act of coercing someone to commit a crime
would also address those instances wherein someone abuses an
animal at the direction of another person, though the courts
would have to make that determination on a case-by-case basis.
LIEUTENANT SELL, in response to further questions and comments,
noted that officers often put down animals that are injured, but
that if someone is coerced into abusing/killing an animal, then
the culpability would lie with the instigator, and the existing
statutes regarding the crime of contributing to the delinquency
of a minor could be used instead of HB 138 to address situations
in which the instigator is an adult and the person who commits
the crime of cruelty to animals is a minor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to comments and a
question, indicated that a forthcoming amendment [which later
became known as Amendment 1, would make certain instances of
animal abuse eligible for an aggravating factor at sentencing].
2:31:35 PM
KAYLA EPSTEIN, Member, Animal Control Advisory Board,
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), relayed that the Animal Control
Advisory Board unanimously voted in favor of HB 138. She went
on to remark that there is a very close tie between domestic
violence and sexual abuse of children, and animal abuse. Those
who sexually abuse children will threaten to kill or hurt their
victims' pets in order to ensure their victims' silence, and the
abuse of animals is used as an aid by the perpetrators of
domestic violence and of sexual [abuse of children] to
demonstrate power and control over their human victims, to
punish them, to isolate them, to perpetuate an environment of
fear, to prevent them from leaving, or to coerce them into
coming back. She noted that 71 percent of pet-owning women
entering shelters have reported that their batterers have
injured, maimed, killed, or threatened family pets specifically
for revenge or for psychological control, and that 25 percent of
abused women stay in an abusive situation because of threats to
their animals - whether they are livestock or personal pets.
MS. EPSTEIN relayed that in homes where a spouse is abused, a
child is twice as likely to be abused if there is also animal
abuse occurring. In some states, animal control officers and
those who investigate cases of DV are cross-trained because of
the [known] link between the crimes of DV and animal abuse. She
mentioned that she's heard of cases wherein perpetrators of DV
have been convicted of their assaultive behavior against
animals, though not for their assaultive behavior against their
human victims, because their human victims were finally willing
to testify against them for the animal abuse. Furthermore,
children reluctant to testify about their own abuse will testify
about the abuse of an animal that they feel responsible for.
MS. EPSTEIN, pointing out that healthy animals are regularly put
down simply because they aren't wanted, said she doesn't see how
the bill could be used against anyone who puts down an animal
that is already in "an animal control situation."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG declared a potential conflict of
interest in that Ms. Epstein is his wife, and asked to be
excused [from voting].
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM and REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected,
thereby requiring Representative Gruenberg to participate [in
any voting that takes place].
2:37:29 PM
SANDY SAMANIEGO, Executive Director, Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA), Department of Public Safety
(DPS), stated that the CDVSA supports the intent of HB 138. She
added that a person can't work at a domestic violence shelter
for very long without hearing stories illustrating that animal
abuse is used to control DV victims.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again noted that a forthcoming
amendment would provide for an aggravating factor at sentencing
for those who have a history of animal abuse and are convicted
of a felony.
2:39:32 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), pointed out that in addition to charging an adult with
the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor if
he/she directs, encourages, or coerces a minor into harming an
animal, the adult could also potentially be charged with the
crime of solicitation or the crime of coercion.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 138.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON removed his objection to the adoption of
Version T as the work draft. There being no further objection,
Version T was before the committee.
2:41:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 26-LS0351\T.1, Luckhaupt, 2/26/10, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "animals":
Insert "; and relating to aggravating factors at
sentencing involving assaultive behavior and cruelty
to animals;"
Page 2, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 12.55.155(c)(8) is amended to read:
(8) the defendant's prior criminal history
includes conduct involving aggravated assaultive
behavior, [OR] repeated instances of assaultive
behavior, repeated instances of cruelty to animals
proscribed under AS 11.61.140(a)(1) and (3) - (5), or
a combination of assaultive behavior and cruelty to
animals proscribed under AS 11.61.140(a)(1) and (3) -
(5); in this paragraph, "aggravated assaultive
behavior" means assault that is a felony under
AS 11.41, or a similar provision in another
jurisdiction;"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 2, line 16, following the first occurrence of
"Act":
Insert ", and to aggravating factors at
sentencing under AS 12.55.155(c)(8) made by sec. 3 of
this Act"
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that there were no objections,
announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:41:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he supports HB 138 because he views it
as providing an appropriate punishment for all the
damaged/sick/sadistic people who violently abuse animals, and
characterized such behavior as spring training for future
egregious crimes against humans. People like this, he opined,
need more than just a slap on the hand; instead, they need
handcuffs on their wrists. Certain of the egregious acts of
animal cruelty that HB 138 addresses rise to a level that speaks
more about the perpetrator than they do about the victim or
property destroyed. He said that he sees egregious acts of
animal abuse as a "stair-step kind of crime," with the
perpetrators being on the threshold of committing serious crimes
against children and other humans. In conclusion, he
characterized HB 138 as a good bill that he intends to support,
and opined that HB 138 compliments HB 6 - a bill [he introduced]
that addresses the crime of bestiality.
2:43:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 138, Version 26-LS0531\T, Luckhaupt, 2/4/10, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
138(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
TIANA PETERSON said she respects HB 138, and that she has been
opposed to animal cruelty ever since she can remember, and
indicated that her mother, aunt, and grandmother [work with
animals].
[CSHB 138(JUD) was reported from committee.]
2:45:08 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 hearing request HB 138.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 02 HB138 Sponsor Statement 2.5.10.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 03 HB138 version S.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 04 HB138 Bill CS v. T.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 05 explanation of changes from original HB 138.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 06 HB138-LAW-CRIM-02-12-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 07 HB138 DOC FN.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 08 HB138 Support.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 09 AS 11 61 140.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 01 HB323 HJUD Hearing request.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 02 HB323 Bill v. A.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 03 HB323 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 04 HB323-ACS-02-03-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 05 HB323-AJC-AJC-2-8-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 01 HB52 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| 02 HB52 Bill v. A.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| 03 HB52-CT-FN.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| 04 HB52 Support.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |