Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/21/2019 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB20 | |
| HCR4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HCR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 21, 2019
3:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Co-Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Andi Story
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Laddie Shaw
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to sexual assault; relating to the definitions
of 'without consent' and 'consent'; relating to failure to
report a violent crime; relating to sexual misconduct under the
code of military justice; requiring law enforcement agencies to
test sexual assault examination kits; requiring notification of
completion of testing; relating to reports on untested sexual
assault examination kits; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to the membership of the Committee on
Committees.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 20
SHORT TITLE: SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) STA, FIN
03/11/19 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/11/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/11/19 (H) STA, FIN
03/12/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/12/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/19 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/21/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HCR 4
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM RULES: COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
03/15/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/15/19 (H) STA, JUD
03/19/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the committee substitute (CS) for
SSHB 20, Version G, as prime sponsor, with the use of a
PowerPoint presentation.
DAVID KANARIS, Assistant Chief
Alaska Scientific Crime Detection Lab
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
SSHB 20, Version G.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:04:47 PM
CO-CHAIR ZACK FIELDS called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. Representatives LeDoux,
Story, Wool, Vance, Shaw, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Fields were
present at the call to order.
HB 20-SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
3:05:24 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the first order of business would
be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 20, "An Act relating to
sexual assault; relating to the definitions of 'without consent'
and 'consent'; relating to failure to report a violent crime;
relating to sexual misconduct under the code of military
justice; requiring law enforcement agencies to test sexual
assault examination kits; requiring notification of completion
of testing; relating to reports on untested sexual assault
examination kits; and providing for an effective date."
3:05:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of SSHB 20, expressed her intention to explain the
changes put forth by the committee substitute (CS), Version G.
3:06:06 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for SSHB 20, Version 31-LS0253\G, Radford,
3/21/19, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version G was before the committee.
3:06:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR began with slides 3 and 4, entitled "Mental
State in Criminal Code," and reminded the committee of the
standard language used by the drafter of the original version of
SSHB 20 - "should know or should reasonably know" - which would
be replaced in the CS with language that was more consistent
with existing statutes. This language adheres to the four
phases of mental state as it relates to criminal law, which are
"intentionally," "knowingly," "recklessly," or "criminal
negligence." She stated that the "reckless disregard" standard
has been recommended by the Department of Law (DOL) and is
defined on slide 4 as follows:
(3) a person acts "recklessly" with respect to a
result or to a circumstance described by a provision
of law defining an offense when the person is aware of
and consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that
the circumstance exists; the risk must be of such a
nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a
gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation; a
person who is unaware of a risk of which the person
would have been aware had that person not been
intoxicated acts recklessly with respect to that risk;
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to slides 5-7 and relayed that
Version G replaces "or reasonably should know" with "or
recklessly disregards" in Sections 1-3 to be consistent with the
standards that are currently used in criminal law.
3:09:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related that Sections 4-7, which address
"consent," have been set aside for further consideration of the
definition of consent. She explained that the implications are
far-reaching; they represent a cultural shift; and significant
work has been accomplished in the last few years in connection
with the Me Too movement [a movement against sexual harassment
and sexual assault]. She reminded the committee that currently
"consent" is defined in terms of "without consent" rather than
in the affirmative - "giving consent." She said that more time
is needed to ensure that the priorities of the advocacy groups
are considered, as well as model language from other states.
She maintained that the proposed legislation has defined
"consent" as overt actions that express consent; however, there
are other aspects of the definition that need further attention.
Examples of additional definition for consideration are as
follows: having been previously engaged in a relationship does
not imply consent; consent may be given and taken away in the
same sexual encounter; physical state may imply physically
incapable of giving consent.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS expressed his desire for something in writing
from a prosecutor stating that the "recklessly disregard"
standard would be adequate to prosecute someone who raped an
incapacitated person. He suggested that "recklessly disregard"
is too high of a standard. He offered the example of an
inebriated person who raped someone who was incapacitated. He
asked, "Is it reckless disregard if you yourself are
inebriated?"
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed concern with changing the wording
from "who" to "when" so that it states, "when the offender
knows." She asked, "What if they say, 'Well, I didn't know.'?"
She asked whether that would automatically make the crime not a
crime.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that in redefining sexual assault
in the second degree, [AS 11.41.420(a)] currently reads, in
part, as follows:
(a) An offender commits the crime of sexual assault
in the second degree if
(1) the offender engages in sexual contact with
another person without consent of that person;
(2) the offender engages in sexual contact with a
person
(A) who the offender knows is mentally
incapable;
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to Representative Vance,
relayed that under Version G, no language would be eliminated;
"who the offender knows is mentally incapable" would be replaced
with "the offender knows or recklessly disregards that the other
person is mentally incapable". Using this language would more
clearly define the circumstances in which it would be applied.
In response to Representative Fields, she said that one of the
challenges regarding crimes involving two individuals with
competing stories is that the standard should not be so low as
to allow too much opportunity to avoid prosecution, but not so
high that the standard cannot be met. She agreed that the
committee should hear testimony from DOL.
3:15:36 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested that the original version of SSHB 20,
updated an anachronistic definition of "consent" regarding
intercourse with children. He asked, "Why would we not ...
update that anachronistic language?"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that staff is attempting to update
all of the sections, which include the failure to report [a
violent crime committed against] a child, the failure to report
[a violent crime committed against] an adult, the military code
of justice, and the overall definition of consent. She
maintained that updating the statutes is a significant
undertaking; every word is important in terms of its implication
and how it is applied in a courtroom; and the effort will be a
significant accomplishment by the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to slide 8, entitled "Section 4:
Sexual Assault Examination Kits," and discussed the three
requirements, shown on the slide as follows:
1. That all sexual assault examination kits are sent
to the crime lab within 30 days of collection
2. That all sexual assault examination kits be tested
within one year
3. That victims be notified by law enforcement within
two weeks of receiving the results that the kit has
been tested
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the only change under Version
G is the requirement that kits be tested within one year instead
of six months. She expressed her desire that there be a 30-day
standard; it is the best practice to which states aspire. She
mentioned that when her office began this effort four years ago,
the length of time for the testing of kits was 18 months;
currently the average is 10 months. She maintained that meeting
a six-month timeline would require additional staffing, which is
reflected in the fiscal note (FN); it would require a policy
decision and support from the legislature to add these new
positions. She relayed that personnel at Alaska's Scientific
Crime Detection Laboratory ("crime lab") [Department of Public
Safety (DPS)] indicated that with existing staffing, they can
meet the one-year testing timeline. She asserted that
shortening the timeline for testing would be an important
improvement to public safety; the aggressive timeline was
intentional in order to attach the corresponding FN and address
the fundamental questions: What means justice? What is justice
for a victim? How long should a victim have to wait?
CO-CHAIR FIELDS expressed his viewpoint that one year is too
long [to wait for a sexual assault examination kit to be
tested]; he would prefer the proposed legislation stipulate six
months.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated that she also would like a shorter
time frame, and it is important to have the information about
additional cost for meeting the six-month timeline. She
maintained that it is important for the victim to be kept
abreast of the progress regarding the processing of the kit and
the timeline.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that he supports kits being tested as
soon and as quickly as possible. He maintained that legislators
do not know the workload of the crime lab personnel; state
agency [budgets] have been cut for many years. He expressed his
belief that arbitrarily setting timelines is irresponsible.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE relayed that it is exciting to hear that
DPS has been trying to expedite the process and has made
significant improvements. She expressed that it would be
helpful to know the costs and demands that the timeline would
impose on DPS; however, this issue is just one piece of the
criminal justice system, and a shorter timeframe does not ensure
that the other pieces of the system would automatically be
expedited. She said that she supports being provided with
information on the whole picture of what justice would look like
in a sexual assault case to ensure that funds are not being
taken from one piece and injected into another piece without
improving the whole system.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked to hear from crime lab personnel regarding
the feasibility of the six-month time period.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR interjected that the forthcoming FN for the
six-month timeline would show a cost of $662,200.
3:22:38 PM
DAVID KANARIS, Assistant Chief, Alaska Scientific Crime
Detection Lab, DPS, relayed that that the FN reflects the
addition of four positions, which is the estimated additional
staff needed to meet the timeline of six months. He
acknowledged that six months is a significant delay and his hope
is to shorten it eventually. He said that he wishes to create a
dedicated sexual assault team whose only function would be to
process the kits as soon as possible; to do that, the lab would
need three forensic scientists and one forensic scientist
supervisor to handle all the case management and associated case
information.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR relayed that in the FN, the four positions
would cost $453,200; the consumables needed to process an
additional 120 kits would cost $122,000. She stated that she
supports the costs associated with the six-month timeline:
however, if the $662,000 is not appropriated, then the process
time would be one year.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to Representative Vance, stated
that due to budget cuts, DOL was short 27 positions;
consequently about 7,000 sexual assault cases were left
unprosecuted over a two-year period. She said that at that
time, DOL prioritized homicides, sexual assaults, and abuse of
minors; however, at the same time, Anchorage had a spike in
homicides. The reduction in staffing and the increase in more
difficult cases for prosecution resulted in the two-year time
frame. She agreed with Representative Vance that other pieces
of the system have an impact. She offered that five more
prosecutors were added to staff last year.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR continued with slide 8 and drew attention to
the new subsections (b) and (c) under Section 4 of Version G
[page 4, lines 18-23]. She read from the slide as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
New: (b) criminal action can not be dismissed if
deadline not met
(c)If case is resolved before kit is tested, timeline
does not apply (plea deal)
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that subsection (b) would address
the concern that the crime lab or a law enforcement agency
failing to meet a deadline might impact a case negatively.
Under Version G, this would not be allowed to occur. She added
that subsection (c) addresses the possibility of a plea deal
occurring before a kit is tested.
3:26:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to slides 9 and 10, which address
Section 5 and Section 6 of Version G, and stated that in these
two sections language was added to require the reason a kit was
not tested [to be added to the report to DPS]; Section 5
involves preparation of the report, and Section 6 involves
delivering the report to the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to slide 11, which addresses Section
7 of Version G, to direct attention to the actual wording used
in the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) reports for why a
kit was not tested. She maintained that using this language
would make statutes consistent with sexual assault examination
kit reporting practices. The language was shown on slide 11, as
follows:
A sexual assault examination kit is ineligible for
testing if the law enforcement agency or state
department finds that the sexual assault examination
kit
(1) Is scientifically unviable
(2) Does not meet eligibility requirements for
inclusion in the combined DNA Index System Database;
or
(3) Was collected from a person who wishes to remain
anonymous
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved on to slide 12, entitled "Section 8:
Applicability," and stated that under Version G, the
applicability of the proposed legislation would apply to
offenses committed on or after the effective date. She turned
to slide 13, entitled "Section 13: Effective Date," and stated
that under Version G, the effective date would be January 1,
2021, to allow ample time for implementation.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, to address Representative Story's question
about victim notification, said that staff struggled with how to
address this issue. She mentioned software that allows access
to a sexual assault examination kit database using a secure
login and unique identifier to track the kit. She stated that
the software costs $135,000 to purchase and maintaining the
database costs $80,000 per year. She maintained that tracking
becomes less important as the timeframe is truncated. She
offered that with the one-year timeline, set by Version G, it
becomes a question of where the state wants to expend its funds.
She maintained that her preference is to use funds to hire staff
in the hope that with more timely processing, notification of
victims becomes less of an issue. She suggested that with a
two-year wait for test results, a victim, who must continually
call and retell his/her story, is re-traumatized. She mentioned
that Version G would require that law enforcement notify the
victim within two weeks.
3:31:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed that it is very important for
victims to be informed timely.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that SSHB 20, Version G, would be held
over.
HCR 4-UNIFORM RULES: COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
3:31:54 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Proposing an amendment to
the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to
the membership of the Committee on Committees.
3:32:03 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:32 p.m. to 3:34 p.m.
3:33:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 31-
LS0673\S.1, Wallace, 3/15/19], which read:
Page 1, line 12, following "committee":
Insert "and the Committee on Committees,"
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE relayed that she supports the intent of HCR
4 to make the Uniform Rules conform with legislative practices
and to allow for the appointment of at least five members on the
Committee on Committees, but not to exceed 25 percent of the
total house membership. She stated that under the proposed
amendment, the Committee on Committees would be entitled to the
number of seats proportional to the number of minority members,
like the appointment of members of standing committees. She
offered that such a proportional makeup of the Committee on
Committees would be equitable. She said, "Our democracy is
designed to protect the voice of the minority." She expressed
her belief that legislative conduct should reflect that
principle.
3:35:28 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that he opposes Amendment 1 but
not because he opposes the sentiment behind the amendment. He
explained that HCR 4 was developed in consultation with the
leaderships of the House and Senate; it offers an intentionally
narrow and prescriptive approach. He maintained that because of
the alignment of the leadership of both bodies to draft the
resolution, he is hesitant to make any additional changes to the
Uniform Rules than what was discussed. He offered that the
Committee on Committees is a "different animal"; it has no
policy-making power; it is entirely appointed by the presiding
officer - the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the
House; and there is effectively no deliberation that occurs in
the Committee on Committees. He mentioned that he understands
on a symbolic level the importance of minority representation.
He said it is worth noting that the minority leader of the
Senate has a seat on the Senate Committee on Committee; that is
not true for the House. He reiterated that a proportional
representation on the Committee on Committees would be a
symbolic gesture and one to which he is sympathetic.
3:38:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for confirmation of his understanding:
by statute, the Committee on Committees in the House is to have
five members; currently it has seven; the proposed resolution
would specify at least five members; if seven, all seven can be
from the majority; and the Senate allows one minority member to
serve on its Committee on Committees.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS replied, "That is correct." He added
that the presiding officer appoints the entirety of the
Committee on Committees. The President of the Senate appointed
the Senate minority leader to the Committee on Committees.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for the number of members on the
Senate Committee on Committees.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered, "There are five members on the
Senate Committee on Committees."
CO-CHAIR FIELDS relayed that he supports the amendment and would
consider it as a separate Uniform Rules change.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she thought [former]
Representative [Charisse] Millet served on the Committee on
Committees last year [2018].
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that he thought that was correct.
He offered that he would be willing to work with Representative
Vance to gage the support of the House and Senate leaderships
for her proposed rules change; if there is alignment from the
leadership of both bodies, he would support it.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested that offering amendments to be
heard in committee, in fact, is the process for getting input
from the legislative bodies. She relayed that she approached
legislators with more seniority and the Speaker of the House
about this issue. She expressed that her reason for offering
the amendment is that when passing legislation or adjusting the
Uniform Rules, legislators should not think just about the
current situation, but about the future; circumstances change
and leaders change; it is an opportunity to make improvements
now, not later.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed her belief that every committee
member in House State Affairs Standing Committee supports the
amendment; therefore, they would not want to hold up the
resolution. She suggested that the committee pass the
amendment, discuss it with the leadership, and if it is not
supported, it can be changed in the next committee of referral -
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered that Representative LeDoux has
made a good point. He said that his preference would be to have
the conversations with leadership first before passing the
amendment, although either order would work. He mentioned that
there is no rush to pass the resolution; it is a "housekeeping"
measure. He offered to approach the House and Senate
leaderships about amenability to incorporate the amendment [into
the resolution]. In response to Co-Chair Fields, he confirmed
his desire to hold over the resolution.
3:44:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL relayed that he supports that decision; he
does not like to pass on resolutions to be "fixed" in the next
committee; and the resolution could fail due to the amendment.
He stated that he remembers the Committee on Committees having
minority members in the past - possibly as a courtesy; it is not
a policy committee, but a committee to facilitate the Speaker in
appointing committees. He speculated that the committee had
changed from five to seven members to add two minority members.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW suggested voting on the amendment so that it
would be considered in the next committee.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS clarified that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins has
suggested that the resolution not be reported from the committee
to give him time to discuss it with leadership. He maintained
that he supports the amendment, if it doesn't stop the
resolution from going forward. He asked Representative Vance
whether she supports holding the resolution over and discussing
it with leadership.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE concurred with that plan of action and
stated that if leadership does not support the amendment, she
would withdraw the amendment.
3:48:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opened public testimony on HCR 4. After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, he closed public
testimony.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that HCR 4 would be held over.
3:48:24 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:48
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0020 Sponsor Statement 3.21.19 Version G.pdf |
HSTA 3/21/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB0020 Sectional Analysis 03.21.19 Version G.pdf |
HSTA 3/21/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB0020 Ver G 3.21.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/21/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB0020 Summary of Changes Version S to G 3.21.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/21/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB0020 State Affairs PresentationVersion G.pdf |
HSTA 3/21/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |