Legislature(1993 - 1994)

03/14/1994 09:07 AM STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE                                 
                         March 14, 1994                                        
                           9:07 a.m.                                           
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
 Senator Loren Leman, Chair                                                    
 Senator Mike Miller, Vice Chair                                               
 Senator Robin Taylor                                                          
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
 Senator Jim Duncan                                                            
 Senator Johnny Ellis                                                          
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
 SENATE BILL NO. 352                                                           
 "An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain information in             
 vehicle records; and providing for an effective date."                        
 SENATE BILL NO. 351                                                           
 "An Act amending Alaska Rule of Evidence 404, relating to the                 
 admissibility of certain character evidence in court proceedings."            
 SENATE BILL NO. 350                                                           
 "An Act relating to a defendant's violation of conditions of                  
 release; and providing for an effective date."                                
 SENATE BILL NO. 349                                                           
 "An Act amending Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(r) relating to           
 admissibility of hearsay evidence by peace officers before the                
 grand jury."                                                                  
 SENATE BILL NO. 353                                                           
 "An Act amending Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(d) relating             
 to peremptory challenges of jurors in felony criminal proceedings."           
  PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION                                             
 SB 352 - No previous senate committee action.                                 
 SB 351 - No previous senate committee action.                                 
 SB 350 - No previous senate committee action.                                 
 SB 349 - No previous senate committee action.                                 
 SB 353 - No previous senate committee action.                                 
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 Ed McNally, Deputy Attorney General                                           
 Criminal Division                                                             
 Department of Law                                                             
 310 K St., Suite 520, Anchorage, AK 99501¶269-6300                            
  POSITION STATEMENT:  in favor of SB 24, SB 349, SB 350,                      
       SB 351, SB 352, and SB 353                                              
 Juanita Hensley, Chief, Driver Services                                       
 Division of Motor Vehicles                                                    
 Department of Public Safety                                                   
 P.O. Box 20020, Juneau, AK 99811-0020¶465-4335                                
  POSITION STATEMENT:  testified on SB 352                                     
 Mitch Gravo, Representative                                                   
 R.L. Polk                                                                     
 2550 Denali, 17th Floor, Anchorage, AK 99503¶272-6474                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  in favor of SB 352                                      
 Jayne Andreen, Executive Director                                             
 Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault                                 
 Department of Public Safety                                                   
 P.O. Box 111200, Juneau, AK 99811-1200¶465-4356                               
  POSITION STATEMENT:  in favor of SB???                                       
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
 TAPE 94-16, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls the Senate State Affairs Committee to order at           
 9:07 a.m.                                                                     
 Number 009                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls Deputy Attorney General Ed McNally to join the           
 committee at the table to testify on the governor's crime package             
 Number 025                                                                    
 ED MCNALLY, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL) thanks           
 the chairman and members of the committee for their attention to              
 the governor's crime package legislation.  Mr. McNally states the             
 five bills before the committee (SB 349, SB 350, SB 351, SB 352,              
 and SB 353) will help to protect Alaska's women and children, and             
 will also help prevent some crime from occurring in the first                 
 place.  All of the bills are inexpensive; several will actually               
 save money and, at the same time, put more law enforcement                    
 personnel on the street without any budget increases.                         
 MR. MCNALLY states the governor's crime package has been endorsed             
 by nearly every major victim's rights group, women's advocacy                 
 group, and law enforcement group in Alaska.  The committee's desire           
 to hear the bills as a package speaks well of the consensus and the           
 recognition that more must be done in responding to violence                  
 against Alaska's women and children.                                          
 MR. MCNALLY says some of the elements in the governor's crime                 
 package have to do with budgetary concerns, while some provisions             
 address other concerns, such as "three strikes, you're out",                  
 juvenile waivers, and conspiracy.  These bills are designed to                
 combat the crimes that most threaten Alaska's women and children:             
 domestic violence, stalking, rape, and child abuse.                           
 MR. MCNALLY states that, at the core of this initiative, are six              
 new laws to level the playing field.  The governor filed six bills            
 in the house, but only five in the senate, because Senator Donley             
 has already filed a bill, SB 24, which would extend probation.                
 Four bills are designed particularly for protecting women and                 
 children, those are SB 350, SB 351, SB 352, and SB 24.  The other             
 two bills in this package, SB 349 and SB 353 would serve to provide           
 new protections for all victims of crime.  These last two bills             
 would put more law enforcement personnel on the street and would              
 give prosecutors and defendants an equal number of jury challenges,           
 as recommended in the American Bar Association's National                     
 Number 103                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY stresses that these bills have very few moving parts.             
 There is not an extraordinary amount of language in these bills               
 which would open them up for amendment, the way the complex                   
 legislation that has been previously worked on involves.  Mr.                 
 Mcnally would contrast the governor's crime legislation package               
 with President Clinton's crime legislation package, which is the              
 size of a telephone book.  The legislation before the committee is            
 an Alaska package; it was designed by Alaska's police, Alaska's               
 prosecutors, and Alaska's women's advocacy groups, to meet an                 
 Alaskan problem.                                                              
 MR. MCNALLY says that brings him to the second point he would like            
 to make today: the problem of rape, domestic violence, and child              
 abuse is enormous.  Alaska does not have the number one murder                
 problem in the United States.  We do not have the number one drug             
 abuse problem.  On a per capita basis, Alaska has one of the                  
 highest rates of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual             
 abuse of children in the nation.  Not only are these cases among              
 the most difficult and sensitive to prosecute, they are also among            
 the most devastating in terms of the outrage, the grief, and the              
 emotional trauma inflicted on victims, their families, and the                
 entire community.  The offenders in these cases are clearly among             
 those most deserving of aggressive prosecution.  They are cowards.            
 They prey on our most vulnerable citizens: children, the elderly,             
 and women.                                                                    
 The problem of domestic and sexual violence in Alaska cuts across             
 all boundaries of race, culture, status, educational background,              
 and other demographic factors.  It is acute in both urban and rural           
 areas.  Mr. McNally shows the committee several statistic charts.             
 The charts show the rising number of reported cases in the early              
 Number 156                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR asks Mr. McNally how many cases, of those that were            
 reported, were found to have no substance.  The senator had heard             
 that DFYS (Division of Family & Youth Services) reported 67% had no           
 substance and asks Mr. McNally if that percentage is accurate.                
 Number 165                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY responds he is not familiar with that number and is not           
 in a position to address it.  However, he is familiar with the                
 cases that are actually brought to prosecution by law enforcement             
 agencies that state they have reason to believe they have proof               
 beyond a reasonable doubt that the abuse actually occurred.                   
 Number 170                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR would like to see the number of actual prosecutions.           
 The senator says there is probably a corresponding rise in those              
 numbers too, but he has suspicions about DFYS's numbers.                      
 MR. MCNALLY says he appreciates Senator Taylor's concern, and he is           
 not familiar with the 67% figure from DFYS, but Mr. McNally states            
 he is not familiar with any law enforcement professional, court               
 system professional, or advocacy professional who is not under the            
 impression that Alaska's problem is significantly greater than that           
 of other similarly sized populations in the country.                          
 SENATOR TAYLOR says he agrees with that, and believes it is due to            
 the high alcohol abuse rate.                                                  
 MR. MCNALLY shows a chart indicating the number of rapes reported             
 to the Anchorage Police Department.  Certainly, 150 or so reported            
 rapes a year is highly unacceptable to any community.  In 1991 and            
 1992, Anchorage saw about 200 to 250 reported rapes a year, but in            
 1993 that figure jumped to over 400 reported rapes.  Mr. McNally              
 states, to give the committee an idea of how the prosecution in the           
 state has voted with its' feet, that the number of assistant                  
 district attorneys in Anchorage has dropped from 26 to 22 in the              
 past few years.  Despite the loss in personnel, the number of                 
 personnel assigned full-time to rape, domestic violence, and child            
 abuse cases has gone from zero to four in that same time period.              
 Obviously, that means less prosecutorial resources are going into             
 prosecuting any number of other categories of crime, primarily                
 business crime, shoplifting, bad checks, burglaries, and other                
 crimes against property.  That gives you an indication of how                 
 seriously these problems are viewed by those of us who are obliged            
 to respond to them.                                                           
 Number 208                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY states another indication of the enormity of the                  
 problem can be gleaned from an editorial which appeared in the                
 Anchorage Daily News (Mr. McNally passes a copy of the editorial              
 out to each committee member).  Mr. McNally says one of the most              
 acute problems is the first item underlined in the editorial:  that           
 84% of victims do not file a police report.  That is a national               
 figure, and is another part of the problem before the state.  Part            
 of the purpose of this legislation is to encourage women to come              
 forward and report these crimes by making the court room a safe               
 place for them; a place where they will be respected, and where               
 their dignity will be respected.                                              
 Everyone is talking about violent crime, but in Alaska, we are                
 talking about crime against women and children.  People of our                
 communities are angry and disgusted by these crimes and by the                
 archaic and unacceptable attitudes, sometimes in the system itself.           
 MR. MCNALLY says that concludes his general testimony on the                  
 governor's crime package, and he would now be happy to discuss                
 individual pieces of legislation.                                             
 Number 231                                                                    
 RECORDS) as the next order of business before the State Affairs               
 Committee.  The chairman asks Mr. McNally to comment on SB 352.               
 Number 235                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY states SB 352 was given impetus by the stalking murder            
 of actress Rebecca Shaffer.  Anti-stalking legislation has been               
 passed by many states.  Here in Alaska, there are have been at                
 least two dramatic cases in Anchorage where information from the              
 Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was used to stalk and murder the             
 victim.  Right now, any citizen can go to the Z. J. Loussac Public            
 Library and use the DMV terminal, or any other of DMV terminals in            
 the state and simply pull up DMV information.  All one needs is               
 someone's license plate number to find out a persons name, address,           
 phone number, and other private information.  Mr. McNally gives               
 several examples where DMV information was used in murders.                   
 MR. MCNALLY states, that, of all the bills the governor is                    
 presenting, SB 352 is perhaps the least important.  It might save             
 only one or two lives a year, as opposed to the other legislation             
 which is going to save many victims of crime from further trauma in           
 the system and elsewhere.  Nevertheless, one or two lives a year is           
 a significant thing, and that is why the governor urges your                  
 support of SB 352.                                                            
 Number 281                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR asks if DMV is still selling information on drivers.           
 MR. MCNALLY replies he does not know.                                         
 SENATOR TAYLOR says he thinks the state makes money from the sale             
 of DMV records.                                                               
 MR. MCNALLY says he believes there are legitimate uses, such as               
 recall by auto manufacturers of defective automobiles.  Mr. McNally           
 says he believes SB 352 would allow the regulators to make                    
 exceptions for those types of important purposes.  However, he does           
 not know if DMV would be allowed to continue selling that                     
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Hensley from DMV if she can help answer               
 questions.  The chairman asks how many people tap into DMV                    
 Number 301                                                                    
 JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, DMV says there is a                  
 terminal in the Anchorage Field Office where individuals can                  
 research vehicle files.  However, in any other offices, there is a            
 five dollar charge per record.  DMV does sell the entire vehicle              
 file to several companies.  SB 352 would still give DMV the                   
 opportunity to continue selling those files, however addresses                
 would not be contained in that information.  Ms. Hensley states the           
 president's crime package also contains provisions to lock up motor           
 vehicle information.  It will allow DMV to adopt regulations                  
 stipulating who can have access to that information.                          
 SENATOR TAYLOR asks if organizations that buy information from DMV            
 could give out all the addresses, but not individual addresses.               
 MS. HENSLEY responds those organizations could not give out any               
 addresses unless it was for legitimate law enforcement purposes or            
 something of that nature.                                                     
 SENATOR TAYLOR says that would probably wipe out any activity those           
 business were doing with DMV information.  If DMV does not give               
 those businesses the address, they cannot create mailing lists.               
 MS. HENSLEY replies DMV would be able to give addresses to those              
 companies, but the companies would have to have an agreement with             
 DMV that they would not be able to give that address to any John Q.           
 SENATOR TAYLOR states he personally does not like DMV selling his             
 name and address to anybody, and the state has been making almost             
 60,000$ per year doing that.  However, if we are going to restrict            
 selling that information and cut off someone's business, he will              
 need to think about that.                                                     
 Number 356                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY adds that drivers' license information, as set out in             
 Title 28, is private and confidential.  Vehicle records fall under            
 Title 9, and are public information.                                          
 SENATOR TAYLOR asks about voting records.                                     
 Several committee members respond that the Division of Elections              
 can release information on registered voters.                                 
 SENATOR TAYLOR asks, if he really wanted someone's address, could             
 he not simply contact the Division of Elections?                              
 Number 370                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY responds that we are dealing with degrees of                      
 accessibility.  There is a difference between someone being able to           
 anonymously look up names and addresses of people at a DMV terminal           
 and writing a letter with a return address to the Attorney General            
 or the Division of Elections asking for certain information.  We              
 cannot prevent crime, but we can make it more difficult.                      
 Alaska has a unique constitutional tradition of privacy.  Mr.                 
 McNally believes this legislation would be very consistent with               
 that tradition.                                                               
 SENATOR LEMAN asks if there is anyone in the public who would like            
 to testify.                                                                   
 Number 381                                                                    
 MITCH GRAVO, representing R.L. Polk Company, says they are                    
 concerned they will no longer have access to names and addresses of           
 car owners.  That access is needed for continuation of business               
 purposes.  R.L. Polk Company supports the intent of SB 352, but               
 wants to insure that their business relationship with DMV can                 
 continue in the event SB 352 passes into law.  R.L. Polk does have            
 suggested language to insure the continuance of that relationship.            
 Mr. Gravo asks the committee to consider that language.  These                
 amendments would very clearly indicated that if a party has a                 
 legitimate business interest, that party could continue to get that           
 Number 398                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY states that, on behalf of the Criminal Division of the            
 Department of Law, he has no objection to either of the suggestions           
 of Mr. Gravo.  They do not interfere with the intent of the law,              
 and they do not interfere with the purpose of the law.                        
 Number 400                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY states that she does not have any problem with the                
 amendments either.  DMV does release driver's records to certain              
 companies for insurance business purposes only, and she believes              
 these amendments would basically be the same thing.  She does not             
 see a problem with the proposal.                                              
 Number 408                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY states, as a practical matter, this suggestion would              
 put into law that DMV would have to accommodate businesses in                 
 acquiring automobile registration information.  Mr. McNally thinks            
 Mr. Gravo's amendments would achieve the purposes being discussed.            
 Number 413                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is any further discussion.  The                  
 chairman states he does not have a problem with the additional                
 language.  The chairman announces SB 352 will be held over until              
 Wednesday, at which time he hopes to move the bill.                           
 TRIALS) as the next order of business before the State Affairs                
 Number 421                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY states that of the six bills in the governor's crime              
 package, SB 351 is substantially the most important, from the point           
 of view of the administration and law enforcement.  The purpose of            
 SB 351 is to prevent rape victims from being put on trial by the              
 defense.  This affects three different areas of Court Rule 404.               
 MR. MCNALLY says some members may recall that in 1988 the Alaska              
 State Legislature acted to try to correct the problem involved with           
 rule 404 as applied to repeat child molesters.  In 1991, the Alaska           
 Legislature endeavored mightily to recraft rule 404 to communicate            
 to Alaska's judges that rule 404 was to be a rule of inclusion:               
 where there were repeat offenders, the playing field should be                
 balanced.  Despite that, judges continue to interpret rule 404 as             
 a rule of exclusion.                                                          
 SB 351 is a fairly determined effort to further fine-tune rule 404,           
 so that the intent of the Alaska State Legislature in 1991 is                 
 unambiguous to the Court System.                                              
 MR. MCNALLY states there are three particular problem areas, even             
 though rule 404 is only a few paragraphs long.  First, Court Rule             
 404 only addresses people with prior histories of criminal                    
 behavior; those with prior history of rapes, violence, and child              
 sexual abuse.  None of these changes will affect the proverbial               
 first time offender.  The problem is this: the Alaska State                   
 Legislature passed a rape shield law to try to prevent victims of             
 rape from being put on trial by the defense.  We are only too aware           
 of victims being put on trial.  Several national examples vivid in            
 everyone's minds are the Menendes brothers in California who put              
 their dead parents on trial.  This happens in a very large number             
 of rape cases.  Thanks to the advances in forensic evidence, it is            
 increasingly more difficult for a rapist to claim the rape did not            
 occur.  As a result of that progress in science, we are seeing an             
 increase of a defense of consent.  In cases where there is a repeat           
 rapist who is claiming that the person they had sexual relations              
 with consented to sex tries to put the victim on trial, the state,            
 on behalf of the victim, would then be able to stand up for that              
 victim by presenting evidence to the court of the prior sexual                
 assault history of the defendant.                                             
 MR. MCNALLY says the most dramatic example of that is the case of             
 Leo Hoffman, which you have before you in the bill file.  Leo                 
 Hoffman was twice convicted of rape in California.  Mr. Hoffman               
 moved to Alaska after serving his time in California and promptly             
 began attacking women again.  Many of those women did not come                
 forward and report the attacks to law enforcement personnel.  There           
 was one dramatic case of a woman who did.  Mr. McNally relates her            
 case to the committee.                                                        
 Number 473                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY states the woman immediately reported the incident to             
 law enforcement.  Immediate reporting of rape is considered to be             
 relatively high in credibility.  There are sometimes problems when            
 a victim takes months or years to come forward.  It was immediately           
 clear to law enforcement personnel that Leo Hoffman had crafted a             
 consent defense.  Under current Alaska law, the jury would never              
 learn the truth about Mr. Hoffman's prior rapes.  Instead, he                 
 successfully hid behind the loop-hole in Alaska law that keeps                
 prior rape out of a trial, even when the defendant chooses to use             
 the claim of consent as defense and put the victim on trial.                  
 Ultimately, Mr. Hoffman was convicted of only one charge: the                 
 charge he had confessed to, possession of the cocaine he was                  
 accused of injecting into the victim.  Incredibly, even after his             
 conviction of a class C felony, the judge allowed Leo Hoffman out             
 on bail pending his appeal.  Last year in Anchorage, while out on             
 bail, Leo Hoffman was again arrested and charged with assaulting              
 not one, but two more innocent Alaskan women.  To protect Alaska's            
 women, this loop-hole, which serves only to protect repeat rapists,           
 ought to be closed.                                                           
 Number 492                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY states that the second change relates to rules of                 
 evidence allowing the state to show instances in which the                    
 defendant has been violent, when the defense tries to put a murder            
 victim on trial by claiming the victim was violent. We want to                
 extend that right to live victims.  There is no reason to only                
 allow this rule to be applied to cases where the defendant actually           
 succeeded in killing the victim.  This second change means that in            
 a case of violence, often domestic violence, where the abuser or              
 attacker tries to put the blame on the victim, the state can come             
 back and stand up for the victim by introducing evidence of the               
 defendants prior violent conduct.  This simply makes rule 404                 
 consistent with the way we treat cases where people are actually              
 killed by their attacker.                                                     
 Number 503                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY states the last change would help protect Alaska's                
 children from serial predators.  This is the change that the senate           
 attempted in 1988.  Unfortunately, some confusing language in rule            
 404, as it applies to child abusers, has been misinterpreted by the           
 superior court judges in Anchorage.  It has been interpreted                  
 correctly in some courts in Southeast Alaska and in Fairbanks.                
 Nevertheless, this phrase, "common scheme or plan" has been                   
 interpreted by many courts in South-Central Alaska as meaning there           
 has to be an actual, specific common scheme or plan.                          
 MR. MCNALLY says the most dramatic case of this, was the case known           
 as Satch Carlson 2.  A Bartlett Highschool teacher was accused of             
 attempting to have sexual relations with not one, but two of the              
 students entrusted to his care.  Quite properly, the Alaska State             
 Legislature had made that conduct illegal.  His defense was that it           
 was not a common scheme or plan.  He had one plan to have sex with            
 this girl, and a different plan to have sex with that one.  The               
 judge, buying that argument, allowed the teacher to have two                  
 separate trials.  So instead of the two girls, coming before the              
 jury and telling what had happened, they had to have separate                 
 trials.  Each jury heard of only one case, and the man was                    
 acquitted and walked.  Charges were dismissed in the second case.             
 This bill would close that loop-hole.  Under SB 351, both girls               
 would go before the same jury, and the jury would make a decision             
 based on what had occurred in that case.                                      
 MR. MCNALLY states those are the three changes in SB 351 to close             
 three loopholes in Court Rule 404.  SB 351 is probably the most               
 important piece of legislation in the governor's package of crime             
 Number 522                                                                    
 is in many ways similar to SB 351 and works as a companion to                 
 SB 351.  We are increasingly recognizing that legislation needs to            
 be passed allowing law enforcement to act.  Before the anti-                  
 stalking law, women who were scared to death and told police and              
 troopers that their lives were in danger, were told there was                 
 nothing law enforcement could do until a crime had been committed.            
 The anti-stalking law has somewhat changed that situation.                    
 MR. MCNALLY says there is a similar problem in regards to accused             
 stalkers, wife-beaters, and other abusers who are out on bail                 
 pending trial.  Inevitably, in a significant number of cases, these           
 defendants, usually in the middle of the night and usually                    
 involving alcohol, they show up at the victim's home.  The woman              
 calls law enforcement personnel, but by the time police reach the             
 woman's home, the defendant is gone.  At that point, the police are           
 not able to immediately arrest that person, who is already charged            
 with a crime, though they have violated bail.  The police first               
 have to wake up a prosecutor, find a magistrate, and do the legal             
 paperwork before they can get a warrant for the defendant's arrest.           
 The result of having to go through that process is that law                   
 enforcement does not do it.  Not because they're lazy, but because            
 it ties up law enforcement personnel for five or six hours of an              
 eight hour shift.  So as a consequence, law enforcement wait until            
 morning before attempting to get a warrant.  When something like              
 this happens with someone who has already been charged with a                 
 crime, the police should be able to arrest the person and put them            
 in jail that night.  The fiscal note by the Department of                     
 Corrections is 11,000 dollars.  It is a cheap, simple concept which           
 will have great value.                                                        
 Number 540                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR asks if SB 350 would only impact those people                  
 released on criminal charges.                                                 
 MR. MCNALLY replies that is correct.                                          
 SENATOR TAYLOR asks if SB 350 would involve situations where a                
 domestic violence petition exists.                                            
 MR. MCNALLY responds the irony lies in the fact that if a woman has           
 a D.V. (domestic violence) writ, and the man comes to her home, he            
 can be arrested on the spot, even if he has previously not been               
 charged with a crime.  However, if the man has been charged with a            
 crime, but the woman does not have a D.V. writ, he cannot be                  
 arrested.  That is the loophole as it exists.  In a civil D.V.                
 case, the person could be arrested promptly, but in a criminal case           
 such as the one previously described, law enforcement cannot make             
 an arrest without a warrant.  Ironically, SB 350 would bring                  
 criminal cases to the same footing as civil cases.                            
 MR. MCNALLY states SB 349 and SB 353 are the simplest bills in the            
 governor's package of crime legislation.  They have the fewest                
 number of moving parts.                                                       
 SB 349 would permit the use of police hearsay testimony before a              
 grand jury.  This would put more police back on the street.  Grand            
 juries are becoming increasingly out of fashion, and many states              
 have abandoned the use of grand juries.  It has been said that the            
 prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich if they wanted.  In the vast           
 majority of cases, grand juries charge exactly as the prosecution             
 recommends.  The administration is not suggesting the grand jury be           
 abandoned in Alaska, only noting that in other fiscally strapped              
 states, it has been abandoned with the sense that the trial jury              
 and pre-trial motions address many of the same concerns.  Right               
 now, when an Alaskan faces a federal grand jury investigation, one            
 federal agent comes into court and tells the grand jury everything            
 that law enforcement learned in that investigation.  The federal              
 system goes further by allowing one single FBI agent to tell what             
 everyone knows about an investigation or person.  We want to permit           
 Alaska's police and troopers to do the same thing.  Under the                 
 current system, we have crime scenes where one person runs the                
 video camera, one person takes photographs, one person speaks into            
 a tape recorder telling what they see, and someone else collecting            
 forensic evidence.  In some cases, each and every one of those                
 police officers or troopers has had to be called off the street to            
 cool their heels at the District Attorney's Office, and then on a             
 subsequent day, at the court house to tell their little piece of              
 the investigation.  It is like calling all six blind men to                   
 describe the different parts of the elephant.  Instead, this law              
 would permit the lead agent to give the entire testimony.  This               
 allows the other law enforcement personnel to remain on the street,           
 it saves travel expenses, and it does not challenge the                       
 constitutional rights of any Alaskan.  There are no constitutional            
 issues involved with SB 349.                                                  
 Number 590                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY says SB 353 (PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE OF JURORS) would                
 address the disparity between the number of jury challenges allowed           
 the defendant and the number allowed the prosecution.  At this time           
 in Alaska, the defendant is allowed ten jury challenges, while the            
 prosecution is allowed six.  The American Bar Association                     
 recommends an even number of challenges.  The administration is               
 suggesting eight for each side; that makes the total number of                
 challenges equal to the total number currently allowed.  There                
 would be a zero fiscal note in that case.  If the legislature cares           
 to reduce the number of challenges to six for each side, that would           
 be fine also.                                                                 
 MR. MCNALLY states there are no constitutional issues involved with           
 SB 353 either.  It is very routine for judges to grant additional             
 preemptory challenges to defendants for any legitimate reason.  He            
 asks the committee to keep in mind that...                                    
 TAPE 94-16, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 595                                                                    
 ...all twelve of the jurors picked must rule for conviction in                
 order to find a defendant guilty, while the defense need only pick            
 one juror who does not convict, because it only takes one juror to            
 end a trial with a hung jury.                                                 
 MR. MCNALLY thanks the committee for its' time and consideration,             
 and says this type of nuts and bolts legislation can really make a            
 difference in an extraordinary number of cases.  This legislation             
 is cheap, some of it will even save money, and the bills have been            
 endorsed by a wide range of organizations.                                    
 Number 585                                                                    
 SENATOR LEMAN states SB 353 actually specifies six preemptory jury            
 challenges for each side.                                                     
 MR. MCNALLY says that in that case, SB 353 will actually save                 
 SENATOR LEMAN states that preemptory jury challenges are actually             
 challenges given where no cause for challenge is required.                    
 MR. MCNALLY states the chairman is absolutely correct, which is the           
 other fundamental protection for defendants and the prosecution:              
 there is a limitless number of challenges for cause.                          
 Number 570                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if anyone has any questions and if anyone in              
 the audience wishes to testify.                                               
 Number 565                                                                    
 JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and           
 Sexual Assault says she will testify on several bills at once.  She           
 thinks Mr. McNally did an excellent job of presenting the                     
 governor's legislation, and states she cannot add a whole lot to              
 his testimony, but wants to emphasize the impact this legislation             
 will have for victims.  Ms. Andreen states she has worked in this             
 field in Alaska for twelve years and estimates that between 75%-90%           
 of all these types of cases never get reported to the authorities.            
 There are a number of reasons for that, but one of the primary                
 reasons is that the system, at least from the victim's perspective,           
 does not work, does not help her, and will not protect her.  Too              
 often, it is her word against the offender's word, and frequently             
 it is the offender who is believed.                                           
 MS. ANDREEN states these bills will go a long way in helping to               
 tighten that up.  Once the process starts, victims are going to               
 know there will be justice.  Ms. Andreen encourages support for               
 these bills.                                                                  
 Number 552                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN states a case comes to his mind in which two men               
 were convicted of rape, but found not guilty of attempted murder.             
 He says the victim was a prostitute, and unfortunately the status             
 of the victim places doubt in the jurors minds as to the validity             
 of the victim's testimony.                                                    
 Number 542                                                                    
 MS. ANDREEN states these types of cases happen on a daily basis.              
 As she was listening to testimony today, many cases came to her               
 mind of many cases which were not successfully prosecuted because             
 of the fact that too often it ends up being the victim who is put             
 on trial: why was she in that position, look at her past, look at             
 her background.  Or in domestic violence case and the victim and              
 the offender are in a marital or dating relationship puts some                
 question in the jurors minds as to why she was staying in the                 
 relationship.  Anything that can be done to tighten that up will go           
 a long way toward helping victims.  With these types of cases, the            
 earlier the intervention, the stronger the message will be from               
 society that this abuse is not o.k.  In the long term, we will                
 hopefully see a lessening of these types of crimes, but not until             
 there is a strong system.                                                     
 Number 533                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Andreen if she knows of any cases where a             
 man is attacked by a woman.  The chairman states the bills are                
 designed to work both ways.                                                   
 MS. ANDREEN states it is estimated that about 4% of adult domestic            
 violence victims are men.  In her years in the field, she has had             
 contact with about a half-dozen men who said they were victims of             
 domestic violence.  In the cases she is familiar with, the men were           
 not victims, but were the primary perpetrator of domestic violence.           
 Number 519                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY says he would like to comment on the case just                    
 mentioned by the chairman, which was Jackson-Osborne.  What is so             
 extraordinary about that case really stresses the chairman's and              
 Ms. Andreen's point about the status of the victim playing a part             
 in the sentencing of the defendant.  The victim was kidnapped,                
 raped several different ways by two different men, beaten,                    
 stripped, thrown in the snow, clubbed about the head, shot in the             
 back of the head, buried in the snow, and left for dead.  She                 
 actually heard one man say to the other, "Is she dead?"  The other            
 said, "If she's not already, she will be soon."  Incredibly, she              
 got up out of the snow, brushed herself off, prostitutes obviously            
 have a tough go in life, was picked up hitch-hiking, brought back             
 to her home, not to the hospital, and did not report the crime.               
 The victim thought, "I'm a hooker, nobody cares, people are allowed           
 to do anything they want to me."                                              
 A couple of days later, the people who had given her a ride home              
 told the police, and the police, to their credit, searched for her,           
 found her, and got her to report the crime.  But this is how the              
 women of our community and our state have given up on the system's            
 ability to protect them, that they don't think anybody would care.            
 This was a wonderfully prosecuted crime.  Ironically the police and           
 the individual prosecutor are really disappointed that the jury did           
 not convict on attempted murder, and really disappointed that the             
 men were only sentenced to twenty-some years.  Mr. McNally thinks,            
 "My God, but for the cops, these guys never would have seen the               
 inside of a courtroom."  Laws like the bills before the committee             
 today will hopefully change the thoughts of women like this                   
 particular victim, who will have more faith.                                  
 Number 496                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN states he would like to move these bills today.                
 He brings up consideration of SB 349 (GRAND JURY EVIDENCE BY POLICE           
 Number 493                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR comments there is an amendment pending on SB 352.              
 SENATOR LEMAN says the committee will hold SB 352 to do some work             
 on it.                                                                        
 Number 491                                                                    
 SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge SB 349 from the Senate             
 State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.                      
 SENATOR TAYLOR asks if the Public Defender's Office has been                  
 contacted about these bills.                                                  
 MR. MCNALLY responds John Salemi in the Public Defenders Office               
 opposes SB 351.  Mr. McNally provides the committee with copies of            
 Mr. Salemi's comments to the press regarding SB 351.                          
 Number 475                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, orders SB 349 released from             
 committee with individual recommendations.                                    
 Number 472                                                                    
 CONDITIONS) for consideration.                                                
 SENATOR TAYLOR makes a motion to discharge SB 350 from the Senate             
 State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.                      
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, orders 350 released from                
 committee with individual recommendations.                                    
 Number 468                                                                    
 TRIALS) for consideration.                                                    
 SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge SB 351 from the Senate             
 State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.                      
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, orders SB 351 released from             
 committee with individual recommendations.                                    
 Number 464                                                                    
 for consideration.  The chairman asks how frequent the ten                    
 preemptory challenges are used by the defense in selection of a               
 MR. MCNALLY states he can only answer anecdotally.  There are a               
 significant, number of cases in which all ten are used, though he             
 has no idea what the actual percentage is.  It is not unusual to              
 use them all, nor is it unusual not to use all ten challenges.                
 SENATOR TAYLOR comments in serious cases it is very common to use             
 all ten challenges.  Senator Taylor states he has no objection to             
 allowing both the defense and the prosecution to each have eight              
 preemptory challenges, rather than six apiece.  He thinks there               
 will be less objection to the bill if each side has eight                     
 preemptory challenges.                                                        
 MR. MCNALLY states each side either having six or eight challenges            
 does not matter: the goal of the administration was simply to level           
 the playing field by giving the defense and the prosecution an                
 equal number of preemptory challenges in jury selection.                      
 Number 440                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN states he likes the negative fiscal note which would           
 accompany giving each side six preemptory challenges.  The court              
 would still be able to give additional jury challenges for cause.             
 Number 436                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY states the administration would certainly defer to the            
 judgement of the legislature.  SB 353 does involve a court rule               
 change, which entails a two-thirds vote.                                      
 Number 431                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN says he would hope that fourteen senators would                
 agree that six preemptory challenges for each side is sufficient.             
 Number 430                                                                    
 SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge SB 353 from the Senate             
 State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.                      
 Number 429                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, orders SB 353 released from             
 committee with individual recommendations.                                    
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN adjourns the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting            
 at 10:12 a.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects