HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE APRIL 22, 1995 1:30 P.M. TAPE HFC 95 - 95, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 95 - 95, Side 2, #000 - end. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. PRESENT Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kohring Co-Chair Foster Representative Martin Representative Mulder Representative Navarre Representative Brown Representative Kelly Representative Grussendorf Representative Therriault Representative Parnell was not present for the meeting. ALSO PRESENT Laurie Otto, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Margo Knuth, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Joshua Fink, Staff to Senator Kelly; Mary Vollendorf, Staff to Senator Leman. SUMMARY HB 201 An Act relating to prisoner litigation, post-conviction relief, sentence appeals, amending Alaska Administrative Rule 10, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 204, 208, 209, 215, 521, 603, and 604, and Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 11, 33, 35, and 35.1; and providing for an effective date. CS HB 201 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the Alaska Court System, the Department of Law dated 2/27/95, the Department of Corrections dated 2/27/95, the Department of Public Safety dated 2/27/95 and two from the Department of Administration dated 2/27/95. SB 5 An Act prescribing the use and characteristics of voting booths employed in elections and the color of ballots used in state primary elections. 1 HCS CS SB 5 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Office of the Governor dated 2/16/95. SB 14 An Act relating to criminal mischief. CS SB 14 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal impact notes by the Alaska Court System dated 3/6/95, the Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95, the Department of Law dated 3/6/95, the Department of Administration dated 3/15/95 and zero fiscal notes by the Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95 and the Department of Corrections dated 3/6/95. HOUSE BILL 201 "An Act relating to prisoner litigation, post-conviction relief, sentence appeals, amending Alaska Administrative Rule 10, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 204, 208, 209, 215, 521, 603, and 604, and Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 11, 33, 35, and 35.1; and providing for an effective date." Representative Brown explained that Amendment #1 [Attachment of the appeal within a sixty day time period. LAURIE OTTO, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, indicated that change made to the notice of appeal through the amendment was the intent of the Department and that the amendment provided clarification. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Brown explained Amendment #2 [Attachment #2] which would delete "60 days" and insert "120 days" on Page 18, Line 14. The language would then read: "(1) may modify or reduce a sentence within 120 days of the distribution of the written judgement upon a motion made in the original criminal case;". Representative Brown thought the change would provide more flexibility in consideration of sentence reduction. Ms. Otto noted that 120 days would be adequate. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. 2 Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #3 [Attachment for the burden of proof. She advised that with the current language, it would always be the applicant that had to bear the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. The new language would state that the evidence could be different and it would then clarify that. Ms. Otto agreed that this was a court rule and that it would provide greater clarification. There being NO OBJECTIONS, Amendment #3 was adopted. Representative Navarre MOVED to delete language on Page 17, Lines 26-28: "The court may not grant a new trial to a defendant on the ground that the jury's verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence". He stated that language was already included in Rule 33. Ms. Otto commented that the judge clearly has that authority now, and would continue to have that authority after the bill was passed. She noted that deleting that language would not have a significant impact on the legislation. Representative Martin pointed out that the language was within the text of Rule 33 and should remain in the proposed legislation. Representative Navarre stated that the new language was "narrowly" defined. He stressed that removal of that language would not have a significant impact. Representative Martin disagreed. Co-Chair Hanley explained that the addition of the language would create a slight policy change, in that it would limit the time before the jury meets. Currently, that situation could be addressed before either the jury meets or after the verdict is provided. Ms. Otto agreed with Representative Hanley. She clarified that this would be a minor change and that it would not affect the contents; she added that the Department of Law would support the change. Representative Martin OBJECTED to Amendment #3. A roll call was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment #3. IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Foster, Hanley OPPOSED: Therriault, Martin Representatives Mulder and Parnell were not present for the vote. The MOTION PASSED (7-2). Representative Navarre MOVED to report CS HB 201 (FIN) out 3 of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. CS HB 201 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the Alaska Court System, the Department of Law dated 2/27/95, the Department of Corrections dated 2/27/95, the Department of Public Safety dated 2/27/95 and two by the Department of Administration dated 2/27/95. SENATE BILL 5 "An Act prescribing the use and characteristics of voting booths employed in elections and the color of ballots used in state primary elections." JOSHUA FINK, STAFF TO SENATOR TIM KELLY, explained that the proposed legislation was designed to address concerns by ensuring the secrecy of ballots and the privacy of voting in two ways. It would require that half of all booths at each precinct be curtained booths, and also having all primary ballots printed on white paper only. He added that the ballot a voter chooses and how they cast their vote is a secret matter, not to be shared indiscriminately without consent. The secret ballot is one of the basic protections in a democracy. Mr. Fink concluded that the proposed legislation would remedy the corruptions within the voting process, adding that it carried a zero fiscal note. Mr. Fink stated that Sections 9-21 incorporate the entirety of HB 132, upon Representative Mackie's request. The legislation would require candidates running for office to run on the primary ballot. Mr. Fink provided Committee members an overview of each section within SB 5. Representative Brown questioned the "rotation" process. Mr. Fink commented that a greater effect would happen if a candidate represented more than one district. Mr. Fink referenced a proposed amendment [Attachment #4] to Page 1, Line 6, deleting the words "the back of". Representative Brown asked how the legislation would work for the independent candidates. She understood that all independent candidates would have to file before June 1st; and should more than three candidates file, that they would have that same "windowing". She pointed out that a person could pick any name combination creating a unique name in order to qualifty for the ballot. Mr. Fink clarified that the person in that category could 4 file as an independent and could pick any name they wanted to avoid being lumped in with the other "independents". Nothing in the bill would prevent that from occuring, although, he added that the thrust of the legislation would allow no one to skip the primary. Representative Therriault explained that the purpose of the primary election was to choose "a" person from "a" party. Co-Chair Hanley interjected that concept was being changed. To be an officially recognized "party" requires a certain percentage of votes on the statewide ballot. In the past, one appeared on a primary ballot and was then registered as a recognized participant. Mr. Fink explained that Page 7, Section #17, portion (a) and (b) clarifies that language used for "political groups" rather than "parties". Representative Brown distributed and MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Attachment #5]. Mr. Fink supported the amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. [Attachment #4]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CS SB 5 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. HCS CS SB 5 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Office of the Governor dated 2/16/95. SENATE BILL 14 "An Act relating to criminal mischief." MARY VOLLENDORF, STAFF TO SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, explained that SB 14 was introduced as a result to the recent increase in auto thefts, especially in the urban areas, followed by a lack of convictions. Under the current law, the crime of "joyriding" is a Class A misdemeanor, the second offense is a Class C felony. She added that joyriding is commonly associated with juveniles and that SB 14 targets that group. She stated that the bill would help decrease the number of vehicles stolen, and the tremendous dollar losses suffered by insurance companies and the victims of theft. Representative Mulder asked how long the length of the increased sentence would be. Ms. Vollendorf replied that there was not a mandatory sentence for juveniles. The decision would be determined by the judge. 5 Representative Grussendorf commented if the fiscal note was adequate to accommodate the fiscal obligations associated with the legislation. Representative Brown asked the penalty for the first offense. Ms. Vollendorf replied that the first offense would be a Class A misdemeanor for a juvenile or an adult. The second offense for an adult would be a Class C felony, although, that offense would remain a Class A misdemeanor for a juvenile until 18 years of age. Representative Brown asked if Class A misdemeanor would carry mandatory imprisonment. Ms. Vollendorf advised that it would be mandatory for an adult, but not for a juvenile. Representative Brown inquired if consideration had been made to placing a floor on the age. MARGO KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, responded that if the defendant was a juvenile, a sentence could be imposed and they would then serve in detention rather than in prison. The Department of Law anticipates, given the youthfulness of the defender, that it could be possible that they not have a record, making them an ideal candidate for a Suspended Imposition Sentence (SIS). She added, then the emphasis would be on deterrence and rehabilitation through the SIS. Ms. Knuth reiterated that the intent of the legislation would be to alleviate juvenile joyriding as it appears to be escalating. The hope is that when the juvenile is required to appear before a judge, that they will then come to have a greater appreciation for the seriousness of the conduct. Representative Brown asked if the suspension of the drivers license would be automatic. Ms. Knuth stated that there was an option of suspension contained in Page 3, Section 5, AS 28.15.1(a), 1(b) which currently authorizes court revocations of the drivers licenses. She continued, Section 4 would be added. It is the criminal mischief offense, the joyriding offense. Representative Mulder noted that the focus of the legislation would not be on repeated offenders as much as it was aimed at the initial offender. Ms. Knuth agreed. She pointed out that offenses in many areas have doubled in the past couple of years. One half of all the offenses are being committed by juveniles. Ms. Knuth stated that the legislative sanctions would help in addressing the "out of control" juvenile offenders. (Tape Change, HFC 95-95, Side 2). Representative Brown asked the difference between the third 6 and the fourth degree of the joyriding offense. Ms. Knuth explained that the fourth degree offense would be for a passenger in the vehicle and would be a Class B misdemeanor; the "criminal mischief" offense in the third degree is for the person who takes the car; that would be classified a Class A misdemeanor unless you are an adult. If the offender is an adult, and it was a second offense, it would then be a Class C felony. Representative Brown inquired how many persons would be expected to be convicted by the offense of "joyriding". She pointed out that the Department had mentioned an anticipated increase of 1000 cases per year. She spoke to the understaffing currently existing within the Department. Ms. Knuth replied that should the legislation be funded, it would then receive the Department's attention, although, she pointed out that prosecutions would be expensive. The Department of Law has indicated that their priorities will be "crimes of violence". She indicated that the legislation would fall below the top priority defense list. Representative Mulder MOVED to report CS SB 14 (JUD) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS SB 14 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Alaska Court System dated 3/6/95, the Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95, the Department of Law dated 3/6/95, the Department of Administration dated 3/15/95 and zero fiscal notes by the Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95 and the Department of Corrections dated 3/6/95. # ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:20 P.M. HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE APRIL 22, 1995 1:30 P.M. TAPE HFC 95 - 95, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 95 - 95, Side 2, #000 - end. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. 7 PRESENT Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kohring Co-Chair Foster Representative Martin Representative Mulder Representative Navarre Representative Brown Representative Kelly Representative Grussendorf Representative Therriault Representative Parnell was not present for the meeting. ALSO PRESENT Laurie Otto, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Margo Knuth, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Joshua Fink, Staff to Senator Kelly; Mary Vollendorf, Staff to Senator Leman. SUMMARY HB 201 An Act relating to prisoner litigation, post-conviction relief, sentence appeals, amending Alaska Administrative Rule 10, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 204, 208, 209, 215, 521, 603, and 604, and Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 11, 33, 35, and 35.1; and providing for an effective date. CS HB 201 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the Alaska Court System, the Department of Law dated 2/27/95, the Department of Corrections dated 2/27/95, the Department of Public Safety dated 2/27/95 and two from the Department of Administration dated 2/27/95. SB 5 An Act prescribing the use and characteristics of voting booths employed in elections and the color of ballots used in state primary elections. HCS CS SB 5 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Office of the Governor dated 2/16/95. SB 14 An Act relating to criminal mischief. CS SB 14 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal impact notes by the Alaska Court System dated 3/6/95, the Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95, the Department of Law dated 3/6/95, the Department of Administration dated 3/15/95 and zero fiscal notes 8 by the Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95 and the Department of Corrections dated 3/6/95. HOUSE BILL 201 "An Act relating to prisoner litigation, post-conviction relief, sentence appeals, amending Alaska Administrative Rule 10, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 204, 208, 209, 215, 521, 603, and 604, and Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 11, 33, 35, and 35.1; and providing for an effective date." Representative Brown explained that Amendment #1 [Attachment of the appeal within a sixty day time period. LAURIE OTTO, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, indicated that change made to the notice of appeal through the amendment was the intent of the Department and that the amendment provided clarification. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Brown explained Amendment #2 [Attachment #2] which would delete "60 days" and insert "120 days" on Page 18, Line 14. The language would then read: "(1) may modify or reduce a sentence within 120 days of the distribution of the written judgement upon a motion made in the original criminal case;". Representative Brown thought the change would provide more flexibility in consideration of sentence reduction. Ms. Otto noted that 120 days would be adequate. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #3 [Attachment for the burden of proof. She advised that with the current language, it would always be the applicant that had to bear the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. The new language would state that the evidence could be different and it would then clarify that. Ms. Otto agreed that this was a court rule and that it would provide greater clarification. There being NO OBJECTIONS, Amendment #3 was adopted. Representative Navarre MOVED to delete language on Page 17, Lines 26-28: "The court may not grant a new trial to a 9 defendant on the ground that the jury's verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence". He stated that language was already included in Rule 33. Ms. Otto commented that the judge clearly has that authority now, and would continue to have that authority after the bill was passed. She noted that deleting that language would not have a significant impact on the legislation. Representative Martin pointed out that the language was within the text of Rule 33 and should remain in the proposed legislation. Representative Navarre stated that the new language was "narrowly" defined. He stressed that removal of that language would not have a significant impact. Representative Martin disagreed. Co-Chair Hanley explained that the addition of the language would create a slight policy change, in that it would limit the time before the jury meets. Currently, that situation could be addressed before either the jury meets or after the verdict is provided. Ms. Otto agreed with Representative Hanley. She clarified that this would be a minor change and that it would not affect the contents; she added that the Department of Law would support the change. Representative Martin OBJECTED to Amendment #3. A roll call was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment #3. IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Foster, Hanley OPPOSED: Therriault, Martin Representatives Mulder and Parnell were not present for the vote. The MOTION PASSED (7-2). Representative Navarre MOVED to report CS HB 201 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. CS HB 201 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the Alaska Court System, the Department of Law dated 2/27/95, the Department of Corrections dated 2/27/95, the Department of Public Safety dated 2/27/95 and two by the Department of Administration dated 2/27/95. SENATE BILL 5 "An Act prescribing the use and characteristics of voting booths employed in elections and the color of 10 ballots used in state primary elections." JOSHUA FINK, STAFF TO SENATOR TIM KELLY, explained that the proposed legislation was designed to address concerns by ensuring the secrecy of ballots and the privacy of voting in two ways. It would require that half of all booths at each precinct be curtained booths, and also having all primary ballots printed on white paper only. He added that the ballot a voter chooses and how they cast their vote is a secret matter, not to be shared indiscriminately without consent. The secret ballot is one of the basic protections in a democracy. Mr. Fink concluded that the proposed legislation would remedy the corruptions within the voting process, adding that it carried a zero fiscal note. Mr. Fink stated that Sections 9-21 incorporate the entirety of HB 132, upon Representative Mackie's request. The legislation would require candidates running for office to run on the primary ballot. Mr. Fink provided Committee members an overview of each section within SB 5. Representative Brown questioned the "rotation" process. Mr. Fink commented that a greater effect would happen if a candidate represented more than one district. Mr. Fink referenced a proposed amendment [Attachment #4] to Page 1, Line 6, deleting the words "the back of". Representative Brown asked how the legislation would work for the independent candidates. She understood that all independent candidates would have to file before June 1st; and should more than three candidates file, that they would have that same "windowing". She pointed out that a person could pick any name combination creating a unique name in order to qualifty for the ballot. Mr. Fink clarified that the person in that category could file as an independent and could pick any name they wanted to avoid being lumped in with the other "independents". Nothing in the bill would prevent that from occuring, although, he added that the thrust of the legislation would allow no one to skip the primary. Representative Therriault explained that the purpose of the primary election was to choose "a" person from "a" party. Co-Chair Hanley interjected that concept was being changed. To be an officially recognized "party" requires a certain percentage of votes on the statewide ballot. In the past, one appeared on a primary ballot and was then registered as a recognized participant. Mr. Fink explained that Page 7, Section #17, portion (a) and (b) clarifies that language 11 used for "political groups" rather than "parties". Representative Brown distributed and MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Attachment #5]. Mr. Fink supported the amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. [Attachment #4]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CS SB 5 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. HCS CS SB 5 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Office of the Governor dated 2/16/95. SENATE BILL 14 "An Act relating to criminal mischief." MARY VOLLENDORF, STAFF TO SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, explained that SB 14 was introduced as a result to the recent increase in auto thefts, especially in the urban areas, followed by a lack of convictions. Under the current law, the crime of "joyriding" is a Class A misdemeanor, the second offense is a Class C felony. She added that joyriding is commonly associated with juveniles and that SB 14 targets that group. She stated that the bill would help decrease the number of vehicles stolen, and the tremendous dollar losses suffered by insurance companies and the victims of theft. Representative Mulder asked how long the length of the increased sentence would be. Ms. Vollendorf replied that there was not a mandatory sentence for juveniles. The decision would be determined by the judge. Representative Grussendorf commented if the fiscal note was adequate to accommodate the fiscal obligations associated with the legislation. Representative Brown asked the penalty for the first offense. Ms. Vollendorf replied that the first offense would be a Class A misdemeanor for a juvenile or an adult. The second offense for an adult would be a Class C felony, although, that offense would remain a Class A misdemeanor for a juvenile until 18 years of age. Representative Brown asked if Class A misdemeanor would carry mandatory imprisonment. Ms. Vollendorf advised that it would be mandatory for an adult, but not for a juvenile. Representative Brown inquired if consideration had been made 12 to placing a floor on the age. MARGO KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, responded that if the defendant was a juvenile, a sentence could be imposed and they would then serve in detention rather than in prison. The Department of Law anticipates, given the youthfulness of the defender, that it could be possible that they not have a record, making them an ideal candidate for a Suspended Imposition Sentence (SIS). She added, then the emphasis would be on deterrence and rehabilitation through the SIS. Ms. Knuth reiterated that the intent of the legislation would be to alleviate juvenile joyriding as it appears to be escalating. The hope is that when the juvenile is required to appear before a judge, that they will then come to have a greater appreciation for the seriousness of the conduct. Representative Brown asked if the suspension of the drivers license would be automatic. Ms. Knuth stated that there was an option of suspension contained in Page 3, Section 5, AS 28.15.1(a), 1(b) which currently authorizes court revocations of the drivers licenses. She continued, Section 4 would be added. It is the criminal mischief offense, the joyriding offense. Representative Mulder noted that the focus of the legislation would not be on repeated offenders as much as it was aimed at the initial offender. Ms. Knuth agreed. She pointed out that offenses in many areas have doubled in the past couple of years. One half of all the offenses are being committed by juveniles. Ms. Knuth stated that the legislative sanctions would help in addressing the "out of control" juvenile offenders. (Tape Change, HFC 95-95, Side 2). Representative Brown asked the difference between the third and the fourth degree of the joyriding offense. Ms. Knuth explained that the fourth degree offense would be for a passenger in the vehicle and would be a Class B misdemeanor; the "criminal mischief" offense in the third degree is for the person who takes the car; that would be classified a Class A misdemeanor unless you are an adult. If the offender is an adult, and it was a second offense, it would then be a Class C felony. Representative Brown inquired how many persons would be expected to be convicted by the offense of "joyriding". She pointed out that the Department had mentioned an anticipated increase of 1000 cases per year. She spoke to the understaffing currently existing within the Department. 13 Ms. Knuth replied that should the legislation be funded, it would then receive the Department's attention, although, she pointed out that prosecutions would be expensive. The Department of Law has indicated that their priorities will be "crimes of violence". She indicated that the legislation would fall below the top priority defense list. Representative Mulder MOVED to report CS SB 14 (JUD) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS SB 14 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Alaska Court System dated 3/6/95, the Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95, the Department of Law dated 3/6/95, the Department of Administration dated 3/15/95 and zero fiscal notes by the Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95 and the Department of Corrections dated 3/6/95. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:20 P.M. 14