Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/08/1995 01:59 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                   SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE                                  
                         March 8, 1995                                         
                           1:59 p.m.                                           
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
 Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman                                                
 Senator Lyda Green, Vice-Chairman                                             
 Senator Mike Miller                                                           
 Senator Al Adams                                                              
 Senator Johnny Ellis                                                          
  NO MEMBERS ABSENT                                                            
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
 CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 27(FIN) am                                              
 "An Act directing the Department of Public Safety to establish and            
 maintain a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification registration            
 system and requiring DNA registration by persons convicted of a               
 felony crime against a person and of minors 16 years of age or                
 older who are adjudicated a delinquent for an act that would be a             
 felony crime against a person if committed by an adult; and                   
 providing for an effective date."                                             
 CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 26(JUD)                                                 
 "An Act amending Rule 15, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure,                 
 relating to depositions."                                                     
 SENATE BILL NO. 67                                                            
 "An Act relating to the crime of unlawful evasion."                           
 SENATE BILL NO.  7                                                            
 "An Act relating to bail after conviction for various felonies if             
 the defendant has certain previous felony convictions."                       
  NO PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION                                          
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
 Richard Vitale                                                                
 Legislative Aide to Rep. Parnell                                              
 Alaska State Capitol                                                          
 Juneau, Alaska  99811                                                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified for sponsor of HB 27 and HB 26                
 Representative Sean Parnell                                                   
 Alaska State Capitol                                                          
 Juneau, Alaska  99811                                                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 27 and HB 26                              
 Dr. Mary Walkenshaw                                                           
 Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory                                         
 5500 E. Tudor Rd.                                                             
 Anchorage, AK  99507-1221                                                     
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 27                             
 George Taft, Chief                                                            
 Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory                                         
 5500 E. Tudor Rd.                                                             
 Anchorage, AK  99507-1221                                                     
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 27                             
 Jay Miller                                                                    
 Federal Bureau of Investigation                                               
 Washington, D.C.                                                              
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 27                             
 Jayne Andreen, Executive Director                                             
 Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault                                 
 Department of Public Safety                                                   
 P.O. Box 111200                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-1200                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supports HB 26, HB 27, and SB 7                         
 Lauree Hugonin                                                                
 Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault                          
 130 Seward, Room 501                                                          
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supports HB 27 and HB 26                                
 Senator Judy Salo                                                             
 Alaska State Capitol                                                          
 Juneau, Alaska  99811                                                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of SB 7                                         
 Gerald Bailey                                                                 
 Gastineau Human Services                                                      
 5577 Aisek                                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supports SB 67                                          
 Pete Roberts                                                                  
 145 W. 6th                                                                    
 Anchorage, AK  99501                                                          
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supports SB 67                                          
 Catherine Petkoff                                                             
 Allvest, Inc.                                                                 
 600 Barrow St.                                                                
 Anchorage, AK  99501                                                          
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supports SB 67                                          
 Alan Tesche                                                                   
 1032 G St.                                                                    
 Anchorage, AK  99501                                                          
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supports SB 67                                          
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
 TAPE 95-11, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 SJUD - 3/8/95                                                                 
            HB 27 DNA TESTING OF VIOLENT OFFENDERS                            
  CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR  called the Judiciary Committee meeting to             
 order at 1:59 p.m.  The first order of business was CSHB 27                   
 RICHARD VITALE, legislative aide to Representative Parnell,                   
 explained HB 27 allows for the collection of samples for DNA                  
 testing.  Both the sponsor and the Department of Law feel this is             
 an important procedure used in investigations for the conviction of           
 repeat sexual and violent offenders.  Collection of samples will be           
 an important tool to be used at a later date.                                 
 SENATOR ELLIS asked at what point in the process the DNA sample is            
 taken.  MR. VITALE replied the sample is taken upon conviction, by            
 the Department of Corrections when the offender enters the                    
 correctional facility, and billed through the Department of Public            
 SENATOR ELLIS questioned who will be responsible for maintaining              
 the records, and for how long.  MR. VITALE replied the blood sample           
 will be stored by the Anchorage Crime Lab.                                    
 DR. WALKENSHAW, Anchorage Crime Lab, clarified the blood samples              
 would be dried and stored indefinitely.  Currently samples are                
 stored in a walk-in freezer and are not destroyed.  SENATOR ELLIS             
 asked if the samples deteriorate appreciably over time, and whether           
 the test results could be recorded and filed in lieu of keeping the           
 actual sample in storage.  DR. WALKENSHAW stated the samples are              
 maintained because new testing methodologies are evolving.                    
 SENATOR ADAMS noted a recent newspaper article disclosed that                 
 evidence had recently been mishandled or misplaced by the Anchorage           
 Crime Lab.  He asked what the penalty is for violating the                    
 confidentiality provisions included in CSHB 27(Fin)am.                        
 Number 087                                                                    
 GEORGE TAFT, Director of the Anchorage Crime Lab, stated the                  
 situation reported in the Anchorage newspaper is currently under              
 investigation, and they will be able to answer the question                   
 regarding confidentiality after the investigation is complete.                
 SENATOR TAYLOR commented the committee is unable to wait for the              
 conclusion of the audit, and asked Mr. Taft for recommendations               
 regarding the types of penalties for violation of confidentiality.            
 Number 106                                                                    
 MR. TAFT replied the specimen storage is done under strict                    
 supervision and the specimens or evidence would be kept                       
 DEAN GUANELI, Department of Law, commented that in any storage                
 procedure, property can get lost, but no one's rights would be                
 violated.  The specimen simply would not be available for analysis.           
 SENATOR TAYLOR questioned the breach of confidentiality violation.            
 MR. GUANELI stated under Title 11, misuse of confidential                     
 information is a class A misdemeanor.                                         
 Number 134                                                                    
 SENATOR ADAMS stated the fiscal note reflects the cost of sample              
 collection only.  There is no cost included for testing or anything           
 else.  He asked what the registration system will cost once this              
 system is used in prosecuting crimes.                                         
 MR. GUANELI responded testing is becoming less expensive due to new           
 technology.  The Crime Lab is only collecting samples at this time            
 because the law enforcement community as a whole has not really               
 focussed on a specific type of testing as the standard one to be              
 used nationally.  Processing the samples at a later date will                 
 enable the Crime Lab to use newer technology at a lower cost.                 
 Number 158                                                                    
 SENATOR ADAMS noted the cost of any type of testing is not included           
 in the fiscal note.  He asked if the testing would only be done on            
 samples from sex offenders.  MR. VITALE replied the sponsor felt it           
 would be inappropriate to attach a fiscal note to the bill to                 
 reflect something the Crime Lab is not required to do.  The Crime             
 Lab does not feel prepared to type samples at this time because the           
 rapid changes in technology.  The Crime Lab is currently estimating           
 $50 to $75 for each sample typing.                                            
 SENATOR ADAMS commented new state programs cost money and he                  
 expressed concern that two fiscal notes were not included.  MR.               
 VITALE  explained the Crime Lab is not required to start typing the           
 samples, and when they are prepared to begin testing, they will               
 have to request funds from the legislature and they will know the             
 Number 187                                                                    
 JAY MILLER, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), testified via              
 teleconference from Washington, D.C.  He discussed the FBI CODIS              
 program, which is a DNA index system that attempts to standardize             
 software that can be made available to state and local crime                  
 laboratories who are trying to implement their statewide databases.           
 To date, 32 states have passed DNA database legislation.  All of              
 those states are confronted with the problem of storing DNA typing            
 results in a standard format, and exchanging information.  The FBI            
 provides IBM PC software to crime laboratories that want to use the           
 standard procedures.  If the crime laboratories' data meets quality           
 assurance standards, it is used in a FBI clearinghouse which                  
 exchanges records among states.  The two principle purposes of the            
 DNA database are: to link serial sex offenses where the offenders             
 are unknown; and to match evidence from a sexual assault against a            
 previous offender's file for identification.  CODIS provides                  
 investigative leads for law enforcement agencies who are trying to            
 link serial sex offenses to each other through genetic material, or           
 to identify suspects sooner than would otherwise be possible                  
 through conventional police investigative methods.  He stated HB 27           
 is consistent with some of the better laws passed in other states             
 in recent years.                                                              
 Number 270                                                                    
 LAUREE HUGONIN, representing the Alaska Network on Domestic                   
 Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), testified in support of HB 27           
 for the following reasons.  Keeping a DNA database will help law              
 enforcement agencies quickly apprehend sex offenders; and, DNA is             
 proving to be a very adequate identifier which will help in the               
 prosecution of sex offenders.  She commented it is important to               
 begin collecting samples now as it will broaden the pool of                   
 available samples.  Waiting to collect samples until better                   
 technology is developed would result in the loss of samples from              
 many offenders.                                                               
 JAYNE ANDREEN, Director of the Council on Domestic Violence and               
 Sexual Assault, testified in support of HB 27.  She stated that               
 sexual assault continues to be one of the most under-reported                 
 crimes in both the United States and Alaska.  In Alaska, the                  
 reporting rate is twice what the national rate is, yet a very small           
 percentage of cases reported result in a conviction.  In 1992, 570            
 rapes were reported.  Most victims were examined, but the forensic            
 evidence collected is not usable unless there are samples available           
 to compare the evidence to.  The Council believes a DNA databank              
 will provide law enforcement agencies and the Crime Lab the ability           
 to compare evidence collected with alleged offenders and suspects             
 and it will increase the ability to obtain convictions.  She noted            
 once that process is used, more victims are likely to report sexual           
 assault cases, because physical evidence will exist to obtain a               
 Number 319                                                                    
 SENATOR ADAMS made a motion to adopt the following amendment (#1).            
 On page 1, following line 7, insert a new bill section to read:               
 "Section 1.  AS 22.20 is amended by adding a new section to                  
     ARTICLE 4. JUDICIAL COUNCIL.                                              
   Sec. 22.20.200.  DNA EVIDENCE INFORMATION.  The judicial                    
 council shall periodically review and distribute                            
 information relevant to the technical, legal, and                             
 scientific use of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profiles in                     
 criminal proceedings to                                                       
     (1) judges and magistrates;                                               
     (2) the Department of Law;                                                
     (3) the Public Defender Agency;                                           
     (4) the office of public advocacy."                                       
 On page 1, line 8:  delete "Section 1," insert "Sec.2" and renumber           
 the following bill sections accordingly.  On page 4, line 1, delete           
 "sec.1" and insert "sec. 2."                                                  
 SENATOR TAYLOR objected for the purpose of hearing feedback from              
 the Department of Law.  MR. VITALE responded the same amendment was           
 opposed by the sponsor when it was previously offered, since the              
 amendment would be adding to the judicial council's                           
 responsibilities which are already spelled out in law.                        
 Number 334                                                                    
 SENATOR ADAMS commented that the amendment sends some direction to            
 the judicial council to review information, and it does no harm.              
 MR. VITALE stated the judicial council currently has that right.              
 DEAN GUANELI stated, from the standpoint of the Department of Law,            
 the issue is a policy call by the Legislature.  He noted the                  
 judicial council may not have expertise in scientific matters; they           
 research legal matters: court and sentencing procedures; and                  
 sentencing trends.  He suggested getting direct testimony from the            
 judicial council.                                                             
 Number 350                                                                    
 SENATOR GREEN questioned the purpose of the amendment.  SENATOR               
 ADAMS stated he feels the judicial council needs to review the                
 information on DNA testing periodically since in order to stay                
 knowledgeable about a quickly evolving field.                                 
 SENATOR ELLIS noted the amendment could be potentially beneficial             
 and can do no harm.  He added the Legislature is unable to keep up            
 with this issue from year to year to keep up with changing trends.            
 SENATOR ADAMS suggested holding the bill in order to get comments             
 from the judicial council.  SENATOR TAYLOR commented he is opposed            
 to adding extra burdens to the judicial council, but it may be wise           
 to have some agency provide a form of objective distribution of               
 information.  He thought judges and magistrates would be well                 
 briefed on the subject as the science evolves, as well as the                 
 Department of Law and the Public Defender Agency.  He requested               
 Senator Adams to withdraw the amendment until Representative                  
 Parnell could speak to the issue.  SENATOR ADAMS agreed and                   
 withdrew the amendment.                                                       
 SENATOR ADAMS discussed a second amendment to delete "and of minors           
 16 years of age or older who are adjudicated a delinquent for an              
 act that would be a felony crime against a person if committee by             
 an adult."  He questioned the rationale for including this large              
 group of teenagers.                                                           
 DEAN GUANELI explained the rationale was to create as large a                 
 database as possible of those offenders who might be starting off             
 at an early age at becoming repeat sexual offenders.  He added                
 Senator Adams is correct about the juvenile waiver bill passed last           
 year for offenders 16 and 17 years old who commit rapes.  The bill            
 would require sample collections be taken from juveniles who have             
 committed lesser levels of sexual offense or when the prosecutor              
 has decided the juvenile system would be effective.                           
 Number 400                                                                    
 SENATOR ADAMS asked for the Department of Law's position.  MR.                
 GUANELI replied the Administration has not taken a position on this           
 piece of legislation.  MR. VITALE stated the sponsor is opposed to            
 the amendment because of the nature of the crime and because of the           
 high recidivism rate among juveniles.                                         
 SENATOR MILLER objected to the second amendment.  A roll call vote            
 was taken with the following result: Senators Taylor, Green and               
 Miller voted "nay," and Senators Adams and Ellis voted "yea."                 
 The committee took up amendment number 1.  MR. VITALE relayed the             
 following comments on the amendment prepared by Representative                
 Parnell, who was unable to be in attendance.  The amendment would             
 add another layer to the government, and should not be added just             
 because it would do no harm.  Additionally, the amendment does not            
 specify that any other type of judicial review will happen on other           
 types of evidence, therefore the amendment would elevate DNA                  
 evidence to a higher level of importance than other evidence used             
 in court cases.                                                               
 SENATOR ADAMS moved amendment number 1.  SENATOR TAYLOR objected              
 for the purpose of discussion.   SENATOR MILLER commented he                  
 opposed the amendment when it was presented to the House Finance              
 Committee because it adds a task to the judicial council but does             
 not do anything meaningful.  He felt the Department of Public                 
 Safety and the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit should be             
 the agencies monitoring the program.  He added he did not have a              
 strong objection to the amendment, but did  not feel it adds                  
 anything to the bill.                                                         
 SENATOR ADAMS asked if anyone discussed the amendment with the                
 judicial council.  SENATOR MILLER answered the judicial council did           
 not object to the amendment; they are mandated to provide a broad             
 range of tasks so this is within the scope of their authority.  It            
 is something Bill Cotten said he was willing to do but he did not             
 say what it might cost.  SENATOR ADAMS stated there was no fiscal             
 note reflecting the cost of testing the samples.                              
 SENATOR TAYLOR asked if further objection was maintained to the               
 amendment.  There being no further objection, amendment number 1              
 was adopted.                                                                  
 SENATOR GREEN moved CSHB 27 am out of committee with individual               
 recommendations.  There being no objection, the motion carried.               
 SJUD - 3/8/95                                                                 
              HB 26 DEPOSITIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES                             
 REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL, sponsor of HB 26, explained under current             
 law, a motion must be filed with the court to take a deposition of            
 another person in criminal cases.  In practice, this provides                 
 another attempt to interview witnesses and victims, particularly              
 victims of sexual assault, and provide another opportunity for                
 harassment of those victims.  In most cases, the victim has already           
 given a tape recorded statement to the police, as well as a tape              
 recorded and transcribed statement to the grand jury, both of which           
 are available to the defense.  CSHB 26(Jud) attempts to incorporate           
 portions of the federal court rule which states that depositions in           
 criminal cases can only be taken under exceptional circumstances or           
 when the witness will be unavailable for trial.  The exceptional              
 circumstances test is in use in all 50 states and all federal                 
 SENATOR ADAMS discussed a bill reviewed in committee last week                
 which attempted to change Rule 16. The Supreme Court undertook a              
 review of the court rule.  He asked if a similar review had been              
 undertaken on Rule 15.  REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL commented that the             
 court reviewed Rule 16 because it was a court committee                       
 recommendation, but he did not believe the same recommendations was           
 made for Rule 15.  MR. GUANELI confirmed that there was no court              
 recommendation to review Rule 15.                                             
 SENATOR ADAMS noted the phrase "clear and convincing evidence" on             
 page 1, line 7, requires a higher standard of proof than the                  
 language "beyond a reasonable doubt."  He questioned why a higher             
 standard of proof would be used.  REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL explained            
 that the standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" refers to              
 the standard under which a person is convicted.  The "clear and               
 convincing evidence" standard relates to what must be shown upon              
 this motion.  CSHB 26(Jud) requires either party to show clear and            
 convincing evidence that exceptional circumstances exist. This                
 narrows the scope under which depositions can be taken.                       
 SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the Public Defender Agency is opposed to              
 CSHB 26(Jud) and whether Mr. Guaneli was aware of abuses to Rule 15           
 in Alaska.  MR. GUANELI stated there are specific judges in                   
 specific locations who grant depositions, particularly in rape                
 cases, in almost every case.  That kind of practice is limited but            
 does occur and causes great concern to victims in those cases.  He            
 discussed the revictimization of the victim when they must make               
 another deposition in front of the offender with no judge present.            
 Defendants have the right to be present at all critical court                 
 proceedings.  The American Bar Association (ABA) recommends that in           
 criminal depositions, the offender not have a right to be present,            
 but that does not hold in Alaska.  He added the Public Defender               
 Agency does not feel it would affect that many cases which is why             
 they are not actively opposing the bill.                                      
 SENATOR TAYLOR felt the lack of opposition speaks highly of the               
 candor of the Public Defender Agency.  SENATOR ELLIS asked how many           
 victims are involved.  MR. GUANELI believed 15 to 20 victims per              
 year are affected.                                                            
 LAUREE HUGONIN stated ANDVSA supports CSHB 26(Jud).  ANDVSA does              
 not believe it places an undue burden on the defense and it will              
 protect victims that already make their testimony available in                
 several ways.  She urged the committee's support of CSHB 26(Jud).             
 SENATOR GREEN moved CSHB 26(Jud) out of committee with individual             
 recommendations.  There being no objection, the motion carried.               
 SJUD - 3/8/95                                                                 
        SB  67 UNLAWFUL EVASIONS CLASS A MISDEMEANOR                        
 SENATOR ELLIS, sponsor of SB 67, explained the bill is companion              
 legislation to a bill introduced by Representative Brown in                   
 response to concerns of people running half-way houses and people             
 living in the vicinity of half-way houses.  Currently there is a              
 two-tiered penalty approach to people who are guilty of unlawful              
 evasion, or walking away from a half-way house facility.  Felons              
 who walk away are charged with a class A misdemeanor, and                     
 misdemeanor offenders in half-way houses are charged with a class             
 B misdemeanor for the same offense.  SB 67 changes the offense to             
 a class A misdemeanor for all offenders and carries a maximum one             
 year prison sentence, and a maximum $5,000 fine.   The class B                
 misdemeanor conviction is not providing enough incentive to prevent           
 people from walking away from half-way houses, and is not a                   
 priority among prosecutors.  The misdemeanor offenders are drunk              
 drivers or drug abusers, and documented cases show these people               
 have committed serious offenses after unlawful evasion.                       
 SENATOR TAYLOR announced Ruth Moulton, who was planning to testify            
 via teleconference from Fairbanks, supports SB 67.                            
 TAPE 95-11, SIDE B                                                            
 CATHERINE PETKOFF, representing AllVest Incorporated (ABI), a                 
 residential center with over 400 residents, testified in support of           
 SB 67.  She stated AVI houses both felons and misdemeanants, and              
 after housing thousands of offenders since 1985, AVI strongly                 
 believes appropriate sanctions are necessary to prevent residents             
 from walking away from the resident program.  She explained the               
 conditions classifying a "walk-away"  and provided statistics on              
 the number of walkaways in the last four years.  She stated                   
 misdemeanant offenders are more likely to violate program rules as            
 they consider the minimum sanctions as an acceptable consequence.             
 She added 26 offenders have walked away from residential facilities           
 between October 1, 1994 to February 28, 1995; 11 were                         
 misdemeanants.  She noted these programs are not only cost                    
 effective for incarcerating offenders, but also offer the                     
 opportunity for successful transition from institutional living by            
 allowing residents to gain employment, develop community support              
 services, and return something to the community through the                   
 participation in work service prior to their release.  In these               
 programs, residents only gain privileges after they have                      
 demonstrated responsible behavior and accept responsibility for               
 their actions.                                                                
 PETE ROBERTS testified via teleconference in support of SB 67.  He            
 asked whether offenders would no longer be required to honor the              
 provisions of parole, for example restitution, after they recommit.           
 He asked if the offender may be trading the consequences of walking           
 away for the consequences of a previous crime.  SENATOR TAYLOR did            
 not believe so, and commented the second offense would most likely            
 draw attention to the fact that the conditions of the first offense           
 had not been met.  MR. ROBERTS recounted a situation in which arson           
 was committed on his vehicle, as well as others. The offender is              
 required to pay restitution.  The prison official handling the case           
 stated that if the offender committed a new crime upon release, the           
 new sentence would overrule the conditions of parole.  SENATOR                
 TAYLOR doubted that would be the case.                                        
 ALAN TESCE testified in support of SB 67.  He explained he lives              
 three-quarters of a mile of 98 percent of all of the half-way                 
 houses in Anchorage.  He noted with the increased concentration of            
 half-way house beds in the downtown area, he expects the number of            
 walk-aways to rise.  He felt passage of SB 67 would act as a                  
 deterrent.  He discussed testimony before a South [indisc.]                   
 Community Council.  The providers of half-way houses do not have              
 any responsibility to the state or neighborhoods for criminal                 
 actions or any other actions committed by walk-aways once the                 
 operator of the half-way house has notified the police.                       
 SENATOR TAYLOR responded the restriction on the ability to file a             
 civil suit against a half-way house for negligence is known as tort           
 Number 493                                                                    
 GERALD BAILEY, Program Director of Gastineau Human Services (GHS),            
 testified in support of SB 67.  He pointed out that GHS has been              
 holding misdemeanants at their facilities since 1991.                         
 Misdemeanants are more likely to walk away than felons; one reason            
 being that the sanctions are not as restrictive for misdemeanants.            
 The City and Borough of Juneau changed a city ordinance at GHS's              
 request to strengthen the charges; this has had a significant                 
 impact in decreasing the number of walk-aways.                                
 SENATOR ADAMS moved SB 67 out of committee with individual                    
 recommendations.  SENATOR TAYLOR objected to make the following               
 comment, "In my previous experience and life as a judge, when you             
 sentenced somebody to a halfway house, you were kind of giving them           
 a break and hoping they would learn something from it.  To have               
 people walk away, and there to be no teeth, and there to be a                 
 system that was so hidebound with paperwork that you could never              
 get an officer to go and start looking for them to bring them back            
 was always very frustrating, so I really applaud the sponsor for              
 bringing this forward.  I remove any objection I have, and wish the           
 bill well, and it moves from committee."  SB 67 was moved out of              
 committee with individual recommendations.                                    
        SB 7 NO BAIL FOR FELONS W/PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS                       
 Number 468                                                                    
 SENATOR SALO, sponsor of SB 7, stated an identical measure (SB 228)           
 passed the Senate last year with 19 - 0 vote, and received all "do            
 pass" recommendations in both the Senate and House.  SB 7 adds to             
 the list of crimes and circumstances for which bail is not allowed.           
 It prevents a person's release on bail either before sentencing or            
 pending appeal, if the person has been previously convicted of                
 sexual assault in the second and third degrees, and/or stalking in            
 the first degree.  SENATOR SALO noted additional information on SB
 7 is included in committee packets, including information on the              
 perpetrator who was the impetus for the legislation. She noted that           
 perpetrator was convicted of an assault he committed while on                 
 $5,000 bail.  She commented that although infrequent, such low                
 incidence situations should be prevented from occurring in the                
 Number 446                                                                    
 SENATOR ADAMS noted the perpetrator had been convicted of three               
 rape charges and auto theft, and asked why he was able to get bail            
 when in Alaska.  SENATOR SALO replied the only thing in current law           
 that prevents bail from being issued is either an unclassified or             
 a class A felony conviction.  The perpetrator's previous crimes               
 were class B felonies.  SB 7 would add those offenses to the list.            
 SENATOR TAYLOR clarified there are two standards the court must               
 look to, aside from the classification formula, when allowing bail:           
 is the person going to flee the jurisdiction of the court; and is             
 this person going to be a risk to others.  Often that decision is             
 based on the premise the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.           
 There being no further testimony on SB 7, SENATOR GREEN moved SB 7            
 out of committee with individual recommendations.  There being no             
 objection, the motion carried.                                                
 SENATOR TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 3:04 p.m.                             

Document Name Date/Time Subjects