Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/14/1994 09:07 AM STA
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= 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 bills. 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 Standards. 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 1990's. 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 CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 352 (CONFIDENTIALITY OF MOTOR VEHICLE 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 information. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Hensley from DMV if she can help answer questions. The chairman asks how many people tap into DMV information. 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. Public. 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 information. 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. CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 351 (CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS) as the next order of business before the State Affairs Committee. 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 legislation. Number 522 MR. MCNALLY states SB 350 (ARREST FOR VIOLATING RELEASE CONDITIONS) 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 money. 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 OFFICERS). 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 CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up (SB 350 ARREST FOR VIOLATING RELEASE 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 CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 351 (CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL 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 CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 353 (PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE OF JURORS) for consideration. The chairman asks how frequent the ten preemptory challenges are used by the defense in selection of a jury. 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.