Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/14/1994 09:07 AM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ 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
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.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|