02/27/2012 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB165 | |
| HB291 | |
| SB200 | |
| SB210 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 165 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 291 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 27, 2012
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Joe Paskvan
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 165
"An Act relating to property exemptions for retirement plans;
relating to pleadings, orders, liability, and notices under the
Uniform Probate Code; relating to the Alaska Principal and
Income Act; relating to the Alaska Uniform Transfers to Minors
Act; relating to the disposition of human remains; relating to
insurable interests for life insurance policies; relating to
transfers of individual retirement plans; relating to the
community property of married persons; and amending Rule 301(a),
Alaska Rules of Evidence."
- MOVED CSSB 165(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 291
"An Act relating to the posting of notices at United States post
offices; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 291 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 200
"An Act establishing certain procedures related to the
identification of suspects by eyewitnesses to criminal
offenses."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 210
"An Act relating to crimes against children; establishing a new
aggravating factor at sentencing in certain crimes against
children; relating to criminal nonsupport; adding to the list of
crimes against children that bar the Department of Public Safety
from issuing to a person a license to drive a school bus; adding
an exception to a provision that requires the Department of
Health and Social Services to make timely, reasonable efforts to
provide family support services to prevent out-of-home placement
of a child; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 165
SHORT TITLE: PRINCIP.& INC/PROBATE/UTMA/RETIREMT/ETC.
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
01/17/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (S) JUD, FIN
02/01/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/01/12 (S) Heard & Held
02/01/12 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/15/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/15/12 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/12 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/27/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: HB 291
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC NOTICES POSTED AT POST OFFICES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
01/20/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/12 (H) JUD
02/01/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/01/12 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/01/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/03/12 (H) JUD RPT 7DP
02/03/12 (H) DP: HOLMES, PRUITT, KELLER, LYNN,
GRUENBERG, THOMPSON, GATTO
02/06/12 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
02/06/12 (H) VERSION: HB 291
02/08/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/12 (S) JUD
02/27/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 200
SHORT TITLE: EYEWITNESSES AND LINEUPS
SPONSOR(s): FRENCH
02/17/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/12 (S) JUD, FIN
02/27/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 210
SHORT TITLE: CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
SPONSOR(s): MCGUIRE
02/21/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/12 (S) JUD, FIN
02/27/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
PAMELA FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 291.
STEPHEN SMITH, Deputy Chief of Police
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Anchorage, AK,
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 200 to caution against
placing the new eyewitness identification proceedings in
statute.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 200 and stated that there
was a growing body of evidence that eyewitness testimony was not
as reliable as previously thought.
BILL OBERLY, Executive Director
Alaska Innocence Project
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered supporting testimony on SB 200.
JOE AUSTIN, Board Member
Alaska Innocence Project
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 200.
BARB BRINK, President
Board of Directors
Alaska Innocence Project
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Echoed Mr. Oberly's statements regarding SB
200.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered suggestions on SB 200.
WALLY TETLOW, President
Alaska Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated strong support for SB 200.
AMY SALTZMAN, staff
Senator Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the changes that appear in SB 210,
version M.
CINDI STANTON, Sergeant
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 210.
DR. KATHLEEN BALDWIN-JOHNSON, MD.
Alaska Children's Justice Act Task Force
Wasilla, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 210.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:56 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Wielechowski, Coghill, Paskvan and Chair
French. Senator McGuire arrived during the course of the
meeting.
SB 165-PRINCIP.& INC/PROBATE/UTMA/RETIREMT/ETC.
1:34:00 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 165, and asked
for a motion to adopt the version E committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt the work draft CS for SB
165, labeled 27-LS0819\E, as the working document.
SENATOR COGHILL objected to ask if the CS was drafted to address
the issues that were discussed during the last hearing.
1:34:44 PM
At ease to locate paperwork.
1:34:53 PM
CHAIR FRENCH reconvened the hearing and confirmed that the CS
contained the three amendments that were adopted during the
previous hearing.
Amendment 1, labeled 27-LS0819\D.1, inserted the definition for
"settlor" in Sec.30 AS 21.42.020(e)(2) on page 31, lines 18-19.
Amendment 2, labeled 27-LS0819\D.2, revised the language
regarding custodial accounts for minors in Sec. 26-28 on pages
22-24.
Amendment 3, labeled 27-LS0819\D.3, added Sec. 6-8 on pages 7-14
to clarify provisions dealing with modification of existing
trusts.
SENATOR COGHILL removed his objection and version E was before
the committee.
1:35:59 PM
CHAIR FRENCH moved to adopt Amendment 4 and objected to explain
that it cleared up the conflict between the date of a transfer
and the effective date of the Act.
AMENDMENT 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR FRENCH
TO: SB 165(JUD), Draft Version "E"
Page 35, following line 23:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) AS 13.46.190, as amended by sec. 26 of this
Act, AS 13.46.197, enacted by sec. 27 of this Act, and
AS 13.46.990(11), as amended by sec. 28 of this Act,
apply to a transfer that is made before, on, or after
the effective date of this Act. In this subsection,
"transfer" has the meaning given in AS 13.46.990."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and announced that without
further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
He noted that the bill was well vetted by attorneys in both
Juneau and Anchorage. Although Linda Hall with the Department of
Revenue indicated that she may testify at a future hearing, her
concerns were minor. He asked for a motion.
1:37:53 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report CS for SB 165, as amended,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, CSSB 165(JUD)
moved from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:38:15 PM
At ease.
HB 291-PUBLIC NOTICES POSTED AT POST OFFICES
1:39:24 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 291.
PAMELA FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that HB
291 would delete four statutory references that require posting
certain notices at U.S. post offices. This would address the
issue that since 2007, the federal government has not allowed
any postings other than government notices. The specific
statutes that HB 291 would amend are AS 03.35.030 pertaining to
controlled livestock districts; AS 34.35.175(d) pertaining to
personal property lien sales; AS 34.45.050(b) pertaining to
consignee and bailee lien sales; and AS 43.20.270(d)(2)
pertaining to state tax lien sales. These notices are still
required, but do not have to be posted at a U.S. post office.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how the bill came about.
MS. FINLEY said this problem came to light last year in a bill
dealing with execution sales. Although the reference to post
offices was deleted from that bill, it makes sense to remove it
from the books.
1:41:23 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that it was a substantive change and
questioned it as a revisor's bill.
MS. FINLEY explained that she made it a separate revisor's bill
to give the Legislature the opportunity to decide what it wanted
to do with the provision. She agreed that was a substantive
change.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what would constitute a conspicuous public
place for the purpose of posting these notices.
MS. FINLEY said it would depend on the district, but it might be
a public library, or fire hall, for example.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI observed that Section 1 appeared to remove
more than just the reference to the post office.
MS. FINLEY said the language that was removed was redundant.
CHAIR FRENCH asked who makes the decision where to post these
notices.
MS. FINLEY replied the district judge would issue the order, but
the exact location would probably depend on the situation. For
example, in Section 2 it would probably be the person who was
holding the sale.
CHAIR FRENCH mused about how long these statutes might last,
given the Internet.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned why nobody knew that posting in
post offices was prohibited when these statutes were enacted.
MS. FINLEY replied these statutes all predate 2007 when the
federal prohibition was issued.
1:46:13 PM
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony on HB 291.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI raised the question of amending the bill to
require online postings. Some discussion ensued and it was
agreed that it was a good suggestion for some time in the
future.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion.
1:48:10 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report HB 291 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, HB 291 moved from
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:48:29 PM
At ease
SB 200-EYEWITNESSES AND LINEUPS
1:49:31 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 200, "An Act
establishing certain procedures related to the identification of
suspects by eyewitnesses to criminal offenses." Speaking as the
sponsor, he said this addresses the way eyewitness evidence is
handled in the state. He paraphrased the following sponsor
statement:
Evidence provided by eyewitnesses is a vital part of
many criminal investigations. According to the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, some
77,000 people nationwide go to trial each year because
eyewitness testimony is arguably some of the most
powerful evidence presented at a trial.
Since 1989, however, DNA technology has resulted in
over 230 exonerations of people who, on average, had
served 12 years in prison, and 75 percent of those
convictions involved misidentifications by
eyewitnesses. When innocent people are convicted, not
only do they suffer an enormous injustice, but the
real perpetrator is never caught and taken off the
street.
Organizations such as the American Bar Association,
The Police Foundation and the National Institute of
Justice have identified procedures that improve the
accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Senate Bill
200 will require law enforcement agencies to adopt
specific procedures for conducting photo and live
lineups. It will require the Department of Public
Safety to create and administer a training program for
law enforcement officers on scientific findings and
the use of appropriate methods when interviewing
eyewitnesses to crimes. I urge your support for this
important step toward ensuring that perpetrators are
caught, and innocent people are screened out during
eyewitness processes.
CHAIR FRENCH said the bill compels a law enforcement agency that
conducts eyewitness identification to adopt specific procedures
that meet specific minimum requirements. This is to provide
flexibility to accommodate the broad range of agencies around
the state. The idea is that before there is a photo or live
lineup, the law enforcement officer shall record a detailed
description of the perpetrator, provided in the eyewitness's own
words. The statement must include information regarding the
conditions under which he or she observed the perpetrator,
including location, time, distance, obstructions, lighting,
weather conditions, visual and other impairments. When possible,
an independent administrator shall conduct the lineup, but when
that is not practical the administrator shall use neutral
procedures. Ideally, the lineup is conducted by an officer who
does not know the identity of the suspect.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that Anchorage attorney John Murtagh sent a
letter to suggest the committee review the eyewitness case of
Tegoseak v. State. It was a felony DWI case where the driver and
passenger switched places. The eyewitness identification
procedures were upheld on appeal but in discussing the case, the
court of appeals described another case that clearly illustrated
the problems of eyewitness identification. He related the
details of a rape case that was aired in a "60 Minutes" story.
The victim identified her rapist in a photograph lineup, a live
lineup and during two separate trials. He was convicted both
times. Ten years after the rape, DNA testing proved that he was
innocent.
The court of appeals commented that it was particularly
troubling that the victim's false memory persisted even after
she knew intellectually that it was inaccurate. The court said
her false memory was clearly the result of the identification
procedures employed during the investigation, and that the legal
tests for establishing the validity of eyewitness identification
procedures needed to be reconsidered.
1:57:23 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if there were Alaska statistics regarding
eyewitness identifications that were overturned by DNA testing.
CHAIR FRENCH said the professionals who would testify may have
numbers to offer.
SENATOR PASKVAN commented on the interesting dynamic of human
error in eyewitness identification as well as false confession.
1:59:04 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE joined the committee.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what would happen if the law
enforcement officer didn't record all the relevant information
that was called for in Section 1. For example, what would happen
if the officer neglected to record the weather conditions?
CHAIR FRENCH said he did not believe that would automatically
exclude the evidence.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked two questions; how was independent
administrator defined and what would the procedure be in rural
settings.
CHAIR FRENCH said the term was defined on page 2, lines 19-21,
and it basically means an officer who was involved in the case.
Page 2, lines 3-6, give guidance when that is impracticable,
stating that a neutral procedure is to be used.
2:02:09 PM
STEPHEN SMITH, Deputy Chief of Police, Anchorage Police
Department (APD), Anchorage, AK, cautioned against placing the
new eyewitness identification proceedings in statute. He said
that APD's procedures were not unlike what was suggested in the
bill, but Sec. 12.50.300(a)(1) gives more detailed guidance than
the APD procedures for a photo lineup. He agreed with Senator
Wielechowski's point and expressed appreciation that the sponsor
said that leaving out some of the information wouldn't
automatically nullify the identification. Rather, it would
create opportunity for attack by the defense. He continued that
the requirement of an independent administrator would impose a
minor burden. He concluded that APD could make this work, but
had reservations about rooting reform of this nature in state
law at this point.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if departments across the state used
different identification procedures for photo lineups.
DEPUTY CHIEF SMITH replied he wasn't aware of an articulated
statewide standard, so there was the potential for photo lineups
to be administered in different ways.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if APD had written procedures for how to
conduct field sobriety tests.
DEPUTY CHIEF SMITH said yes.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if an officer sometimes forgets one of the
steps in conducting a field sobriety test.
DEPUTY CHIEF SMITH agreed that did happen.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the test is admitted and cross examined at
trial.
DEPUTY CHIEF SMITH said yes and it would probably work the same
way for photo lineups.
CHAIR FRENCH said that was his belief, but he'd check with DOL.
2:06:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if field sobriety tests were in
statute or policies enacted by the police department.
DEPUTY CHIEF SMITH replied he didn't believe they were in
statute, but the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) promulgated the standardized field sobriety test (SFST),
and that federal model had been adopted by most states.
CHAIR FRENCH reiterated his intention to find out if procedures
that were set in statute and not followed would automatically
lead to exclusion of the evidence, or if it would be an area of
cross examination.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the procedures laid out in Section
1 appeared to be reasonable.
DEPUTY CHIEF SMITH replied APD already asks different facets of
the information that's listed so it was reasonable.
2:09:22 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration (DOA), stated that there was a growing body of
evidence that eyewitness testimony was not as reliable as
previously thought. There are exonerations and also studies
establishing the ease with which misidentification occurs. With
regard to the concern that the requirements were too specific
and might cause the identification to get thrown out, he pointed
out that these types of things were subject to cross examination
now. By following these procedures, it would be unlikely to get
a finding that would cause an identification to be thrown out.
That is the point of establishing a standard, he said.
2:11:30 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he was aware of any eyewitness
identification cases in Alaska that were overturned.
MR. STEINER said not specifically, but he was aware of cases
where eyewitness identification was called into question and of
cases of false confession. Anything that moves toward
eliminating mistakes, improves the outcomes of the criminal
justice system, he stated.
2:12:25 PM
BILL OBERLY, Executive Director, Alaska Innocence Project,
stated that eyewitness reform was very important to the project,
primarily because these identifications were the leading
contributor to wrongful convictions. He agreed with the
sponsor's statistics on DNA exonerations and added that social
science research had demonstrated that the human mind is unlike
a tape recorder. As with any crime scene evidence, eyewitness
memory is subject to contamination and can lead to wrongful
conviction. Although the court of appeals in 2009 recognized the
need to institute best practices in identification procedures
when it ruled on the Tegoseak case, an informal review - and
later a freedom of information request - indicated that in 2011
most law enforcement agencies in the state had no procedures at
all for eyewitness identification.
Extensive social research established six procedures that are
being instituted nationwide to make eyewitness identification an
effective tool for law enforcement: 1) a proper lineup
composition; 2) instructions to the witness; 3) double blind
administration of the test; 4) sequential presentation; 5)
confidence statements; and 6) recording the procedure.
MR. OBERLY highlighted a potential error on page 2, line 5. It
indicates that simultaneous presentation is the most neutral
administration of a lineup, when it is actually sequential
presentation that is the most effective presentation.
He said the Alaska Innocence Project views SB 200 as a starting
point for bringing law enforcement practices in line with
current research on eyewitness identifications. It will help in
prosecutions of those who commit crimes and prevention of
wrongful convictions. Anticipating a question, he mentioned the
DNA testing law that was enacted two years ago, and estimated
that in another year or so it would provide examples of wrongful
eyewitness identifications.
2:18:40 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked how eyewitness identifications were most
typically prejudiced right now.
MR. OBERLY said the research shows that when the investigator
knows the identity of the suspect, that information is
intentionally or unintentionally signaled to the witness. He
stressed the importance of eliminating the possibility of that
type of situation.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if anything in the bill would make it less
intimidating to a victim.
MR. OBERLY said the victim of a crime will probably always find
the eyewitness identification intimidating. He added that
because the procedure runs in the background, the eyewitness
probably wouldn't know if the lineup was suggestive or had these
improvements.
2:22:06 PM
JOE AUSTIN, member of the board of directors, Alaska Innocence
Project, Anchorage, AK, said he was a retired law enforcement
officer and had done lots of lineups during his career. He
stated support the bill, but suggested that the minimum number
of filler photographs should be five. The normal practice in his
experience was to present six photographs that may or may not
include the suspect.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that it was consistent with current
practice and wouldn't be a burden.
2:23:26 PM
BARB BRINK, president of the board of directors, Alaska
Innocence Project, said she was a public defender for the state
for 23 years and was currently working for the federal public
defender. She stated support for everything that Mr. Oberly
said. She offered statistics to confirm the prevalence of
eyewitness misidentifications and to emphasize why these reforms
are so critical.
She elaborated on the importance of the six procedures that Mr.
Oberly mentioned earlier that make eyewitness identification a
more effective tool for law enforcement. These were proper
lineup composition, instructions to the witness, double blind
administration of the test, sequential (not simultaneous)
presentation, confidence statements, and recording the
procedure.
2:32:14 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if location was an issue in
eyewitness identifications. He cited an example of an assault
case in a small Alaskan town and eyewitness identification in
the field that illustrated a weighted identification.
MS. BRINK confirmed the example was highly suggestible as
opposed to the bill that suggests the procedure takes place in a
quiet location outside the trauma of the moment. The latter is
obviously a superior method, she said.
CHAIR FRENCH reviewed some of the supporting documents in the
packet. One was a training key from the International
Association of Chiefs of Police that quoted from the Supreme
Court case United States v. Wade. It said the influence of
improper suggestion on witnesses was perhaps responsible for
more errors than all other factors combined. Another was from
the Ramsey County district attorney's office that pointed out
that nobody in law enforcement has any interest in convicting
the innocent.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General representing the
Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), introduced herself.
2:36:00 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if DOL thought that failure to follow
the procedures would cause the identification to be thrown out
or if it would go to the weight of the evidence. He also asked
if the administration had a position on the bill.
MS. CARPENETI opined that it would go to the weight of the
evidence, and said she was pleased that the committee was
specifically discussing the point. She then suggested on page 2,
lines 2-3, clarifying that the mandatory language was either or.
Either a blinded administrator would conduct the lineup or the
administrator would use a neutral procedure.
CHAIR FRENCH agreed with the suggestion, and added that he also
intended to look into whether it was better to use "sequential"
rather than "simultaneous" on page 2, line 5.
SENATOR PASKVAN commented that it would seem to be fertile
ground for defense counsel if a police department didn't have a
standard procedure for administering eyewitness identifications.
MS. CARPENETI agreed it would be brought into question and added
that these things were also the subject of pretrial motions.
SENATOR PASKVAN commented on the likelihood of an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim if the defense didn't inquire about
the fact that their client was misidentified when the department
didn't have a standard procedure.
MS. CARPENETI said the eyewitness testimony would probably be
challenged if the defense was that it was a misidentification.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed a desire for more certainty as to
whether it would go to the weight of the evidence or get the
identification thrown out if an officer forgot to record the
weather, for example. He questioned how a court would interpret
it.
CHAIR FRENCH said he would have legislative legal draft a memo
on that point.
MS. CARPENETI suggested that it could also be addressed in the
bill.
CHAIR FRENCH said he'd inquire as to the best approach.
2:40:48 PM
WALLY TETLOW, President, Alaska Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, stated strong support for SB 200. The clear purpose of
the bill is to strengthen identification procedures used by law
enforcement agencies, thereby minimizing wrongful convictions.
He highlighted that the statistics show that 75 percent of
convictions that are reversed after DNA work is done, were the
result of misidentifications. Improving identification
procedures will not only minimize wrongful convictions, but also
strengthen convictions of the responsible parties.
2:42:48 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 200 in committee.
SB 210-CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
2:42:54 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 210.
SENATOR LESIL MCGUIRE, sponsor of SB 210, noted there was a new
committee substitute (CS).
At ease from 2:43 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. to distribute the CS.
2:45:28 PM
CHAIR FRENCH reconvened the meeting and asked for a motion to
adopt the proposed CS.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt CS for SB 210, labeled 27-
LS1362\M, as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, version M was
before the committee.
SENATOR MCGUIRE read the following sponsor statement into the
record. [Original punctuation provided.]
On February 8, 2012 the Children's Justice Task Force
(CJA) a federally-mandated, statewide
multidisciplinary group presented their findings to
the Joint Senate Judiciary and HESS Committees with
their system recommendations for improvement through
criminal legislation. I became aware through this
presentation, research, and other important
conversations that we have shortcomings in the current
criminal laws regarding the prosecution of harm to
children.
Those that suffer from these short comings are
Alaska's children and the numbers are staggering. In
2008, approximately 12,400 children were likely
victims of at least one incident of maltreatment,
which breaks down to 34 children per day. In the
instance of a child death, 1 out of every 5 was
related to maltreatment.
SB 210 works with the recommendations from CJA to
create tougher penalties on crimes committed against a
child. The bill includes several different measures
including modifying statutes to create increased
criminal liability for assaults to children,
strengthens statutes regarding exposure of children to
drugs, increases penalties when a parent intentionally
withholds adequate food or liquids, and creates a
criminal law that prohibits an incarcerated person
from contacting a victim prior to trial and
sentencing.
Together, the Legislature can assist our future
generations by providing them with laws that protect
their rights and create safer communities for their
growth and development. I urge your support for this
legislation.
She recapped several cases that were described during the task
force presentation and said Section 2 addresses deprivation of
food and water and Section 3 addresses torture and
disfigurement, including strangulation.
2:52:06 PM
AMY SALTZMAN, staff to Senator Lesil McGuire, reviewed the
changes that appear in SB 210, version M.
The title was changed to "An Act relating to crimes against
children; and providing for an effective date."
Section 1 - On page 1, lines 11 and 15, age 10 was raised to age
12.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that assault in the third degree was a class
C felony assault.
MS. SALTZMAN said the next change appears in Section 2, page 3,
lines 9-10. A new paragraph (4) was added to [AS 11.51.100(a)]
to address reckless failure to provide adequate food and liquid
to a child such that it impairs the child's health.
She noted that the sponsor was still working on that language.
SENATOR MCGUIRE highlighted that it adds an additional reason
for which a person can be convicted of the crime of endangering
the welfare of a child in the first degree.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that would be a class C felony.
MS. SALTZMAN noted that the sponsor was referring to Section 3,
page 3, lines 12-13. The next change appears in Section 4, page
3, lines 22-30. It adds a new paragraph (C) to the definitions
section, [AS 11.81.900(56)], that talks about physical injury to
a person under age 16 involving serious disfigurement or
impairment. She noted that the discussion was still open about
whether the term "bruising" was sufficiently specific.
CHAIR FRENCH confirmed that term appeared on page 3, line 25.
SENATOR MCGUIRE clarified that this modification raises the
definition of physical abuse in this circumstance to assault in
the first degree, a class C felony.
CHAIR FRENCH said it would depend on the means by which a person
caused serious physical injury. Any place that "serious physical
injury" is plugged into the statute it would be modified by this
new paragraph (C).
2:55:49 PM
CINDI STANTON, Sergeant, Anchorage Police Department (APD),
Anchorage, AK, said she was currently the supervisor of the
Crimes Against Children Unit, and had worked on this new
legislation for 18 months as a member of the Child Justice Act
Task Force. She stated support for the changes in version M and
emphasized that the bill will help get felony charges in cases
where it is difficult now. She cited several cases.
2:58:47 PM
KATHLEEN BALDWIN-JOHNSON, MD, member, Alaska Children's Justice
Act Task Force, spoke in support of SB 210. She said she was a
family physician in Wasilla, but spends a majority of time on
child abuse medicine. These children have been sexually or
physically abused, neglected and endangered by exposure to
drugs. The task force identified gaps in the current law and SB
210 addresses these omissions. Alaska is combatting an epidemic
of interfamilial violence and sexual assault and children are
commonly victims. A solution to this will ultimately lie in a
cultural shift where children are valued and cherished members
of society, but a necessary step for that to occur is for
Alaskan law to clearly state that child abuse will not be
tolerated, she stated.
3:02:06 PM
CHAIR FRENCH stated that public testimony would continue at a
future meeting.
[SB 210 was held in committee.]
3:02:27 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 165 Version E.pdf |
SJUD 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 165 |
| SB 165 amendment E.1.pdf |
SJUD 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 165 |
| SB 200 Support Document Police Chief Magazine.pdf |
SJUD 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| SB 200 Support Document Train the Trainer Bulletin.pdf |
SJUD 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| SB 200 Support Document Training Key Assoc of Chiefs of Police.pdf |
SJUD 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| SB 210 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 210 |
| SB 200 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| SB 210 version M.pdf |
SJUD 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 210 |
| SB 210 Supporting Documents.PDF |
SJUD 2/27/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 210 |