Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/30/2024 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB259 | |
| HB11 | |
| HB68 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 11
"An Act establishing the crime of assault in the
presence of a child."
7:07:19 PM
Representative Josephson explained that the bill would add
a misdemeanor to title 11 of the state code. He shared that
he had been a prosecutor over 20 years back and he had come
across that the Municipality of Anchorage's criminal code,
Title 9, included a crime called family violence, which was
essentially the equivalent of assault in the presence of a
child. He believed it was the only crime he saw that did
not have a state equivalency. He relayed that during the
last campaign cycle the Alaska Network for Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) sent out a
questionnaire to legislators and had asked what remedies
legislators suggested in terms of children witnessing
violence in their homes and the trauma that resulted. He
stated it was an impetus for the legislation. He was
prepared to talk about trauma informed information and data
in terms of the exposure of children to domestic violence
as well as Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES) scores,
which the CDC [Center for Disease Control and Prevention].
Representative Josephson stated that the idea for the bill
was not drafted out of whole cloth; there was a municipal
equivalent. Additionally, there was a sentencing aggravator
in the felony code AS 12.55.155. He explained that there
was something akin to the bill in the circumstances where
there had been a felony conviction and a jury was asked
whether a certain aggravator should apply. He elaborated
that in the domestic violence context, the aggravator
applied to situations where children under the age of 16
witnessed the violence. He noted it had to be proven beyond
reasonable doubt to a jury. He explained that the bill
would make the crime a misdemeanor and would provide
prosecutorial option. The first question would be whether a
crime before the prosecutor a felony. He explained that the
prosecutor could pursue the aggravator if a child witnessed
the felony. He stated that most of the cases were not
felonies. He noted there were about 220 charged per year in
Anchorage.
Representative Josephson stated that the bill required a
predicate offence of assault. He explained that there would
be two charges and depending on the strength or weakness of
the case the prosecutor may agree to dismiss one count or a
no contest plea on another. He described it as a tool in
the toolkit for prosecutors. He highlighted a 2021 case
brought by [David Alan] Linden [against the Municipality of
Anchorage] challenging the constitutionality of the law. He
detailed that the individual lost to a unanimous court of
appeals. The judge had determined a situation involving an
assault against an adult and a child witnessing the assault
were two separate things that should not merge. She ruled
it was legitimate to charge two separate things. The judge
had cited the importance of the Anchorage Assembly putting
the reason behind the creation of the ordinance on record,
which was over 20 years back. The assembly had discussed
the specific type of harm and the different societal
interest of separating out assault in the presence of
children.
Representative Josephson summarized his explanation of the
bill. He stated that the municipality [of Anchorage
criminal code] identified assault in the presence of a
child as a crime. He relayed that law included something
akin to it for felonies only. He noted that was not a new
charge, it was an aggravator that would increase a felony
sentence. He highlighted the court opinion ruling [charging
separately for assault in the presence of a child] was
acceptable. He added that it was also done in other states.
He noted that maltreatment laws in Alaska included exposure
of domestic violence. He relayed that it was consistent
with Alaska's civil law specifying that if children witness
domestic violence, it was considered a maltreatment of the
child. He noted there were letters in support of the
legislation from Alaska Family Services in Palmer and Women
in Safe Homes (WISH) in Ketchikan.
7:14:20 PM
Representative Josephson believed there were some concerns
that there would be unfair charging. He explained that in
the event of domestic violence, it had been asked whether
the police would properly charge the assailant. He had
learned that in [AS] 18.65 there was already a law called
mandatory arrest for crimes involving domestic violence,
which included a four-pronged test. He explained that
police were trained where they could discern between the
assailant and the victim to ask themselves the four
questions before making a determination.
Representative Josephson relayed that the bill had three
hearings by the House Judiciary Committee and received four
"do pass" recommendations including two from more
conservative members. He thanked Representative Vance for
the hearings, which had taken place the previous session.
There had also been discussion about the proximity of a
child when the event occurred. He relayed that the
committee would hear from a former municipal prosecutor who
currently worked for the Office of Victims Rights. He
believed the individual viewed HB 11 as better than the
municipality's ordinance because it defined "present" as
meaning physically present or within the hearing of the
assault. He noted that someone may question whether a
person could be mischarged because they were unaware there
were children down the hall or perhaps in another apartment
building who heard the events. He thought the answer was
found in a person's mental state. He explained it would be
necessary to prove that a person consciously disregarded a
substantial and justifiable risk that others outside their
domicile could hear. He surmised that a prosecutor would
likely use a rule of reason when considering who the kids
were that were really impacted by an incident. He remarked
that it was not necessarily a child who had been
downstairs, although it was possible. He stated it was a
criminal law, which was difficult to craft. He was
available for questions.
Representative Ortiz asked if the bill could apply to a
situation where someone was in a public ball field and
happened to witness a violent act by one person towards
another. He asked if the perpetrator would be subject to
the law of causing harm to the child even if they were
strangers to the child.
Representative Josephson responded that it was a core
question. He stated that the scenario may meet the
elements, but he believed prosecutors would use their
discretion and conclude it would not be a case worth
bringing to a jury. He relayed that the House Judiciary
Committee had wrestled with the question and the language
in the bill resulted from consultation with Mike Shaffer
[Office of Victims' Rights], the Department of Law, and
legislative council.
Co-Chair Foster moved to invited testimony.
7:19:39 PM
MIKE SHAFFER, ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation
and believed the law was long overdue. He provided an
overview of what he would discuss. He shared that in the
past he had done general crime prosecution and domestic
violence crime prosecution for the Municipality of
Anchorage. He had also worked with low income domestic
violence and sexual assault victims at the Alaska Native
Justice Center. He provided further detail about his work
history. He had joined the Office of Victims' Rights in
2022. He first prosecuted family violence in the mid-2000s,
which was enacted in the late 1990s by a prosecutor who
urged the assembly to adopt it. Once he began working at
the justice center, he had done trainings nationwide on
domestic violence and sexual assault. He had learned about
the physical and psychological impacts of assaults that
occurred around children. He explained that although the
assault was committed externally, the assault was actually
committed inside a child's developing brain, which
curtailed brain development in a fundamental way. He
highlighted that Alaska was one of the leaders in the
incidence of domestic violence statewide. He relayed that
domestic violence occurring around children formed their
thinking and understanding and impaired the ability for
their cerebral cortexes to properly develop. He relayed
that clients talked about their children and their behavior
and how it would change subsequent to assaults or multiple
assaults. It had a serious impact on children as they
developed and who did not have the ability to curb their
own impulses. It was part of where intergenerational
domestic violence came from.
Mr. Shaffer elaborated that children who had been around
violence had poorer brain development and they repeated the
behavior when they were old enough. He explained that the
bill was designed to address the cycle of intergenerational
violence. He noted that from his experience, often the
family violence crime was worse than the assault. He
provided an example of a four-year-old child describing
that their dad had hit their mom and she had fallen down
and was crying. He explained that the experience became
seared in a child's brain. He highlighted another case
where a nine-year-old had called 911 from a closet to
report that his father was brutally beating his mother. He
noted the dispatcher could hear the assault happening over
the phone. He detailed that the child had not directly
witness the assault, but the trauma impact of the crime was
likely lifelong.
Mr. Shaffer highlighted the importance of the bill. He
shared that he had prosecuted thousands of assaults, most
of which were domestic violence, which constituted the
majority of assaults. He referenced the example given by
Representative Ortiz about a child witnessing an assault on
a ball field. He stated the situation would not likely
result in a charge associated with causing harm to a child.
He noted that if a young person had stayed to tell the
police what they had witnessed, that child was impacted by
what they saw. He remarked that most people did not witness
any interpersonal violence in their lives but seeing it in
person had an impact. He elaborated that the more apparent
it was, the more impacting it was. He explained that a
child could be hiding under a bed in terror while one
parent was assaulting the other. He added that if a parent
assaulted a child with other children present, it was
equally traumatizing if not more so. He elaborated that it
was confusing for children when they saw one person who
they loved hurting another person they loved without the
ability to do anything about it and with the feeling that
perhaps it was their fault in some way.
Mr. Shaffer relayed that there were times where he
considered the family violence that occurred to be as much
or more severe than the assault itself. Based on his
experience and training, he found the law to be long
overdue at the state level. The cost of enforcement was
minimal because the fundamental crime was the assault
itself that had to be proven. The extra part of the crime
was presence of a child, which was not a time consuming
issue to prove. He remarked on the fiscal note showing that
the Office of Public Advocacy would need an extra attorney.
He did not really understand the need. He had prosecuted
the crime over a period of approximately 17 or 18 years and
there had been no impact or concern expressed by the city
because family violence was a charge associated with the
underlying charge of assault. He pointed out that not all
assaults occurred with children present and there were a
number of assaults that would not be prosecuted with the
additional charge. He added that the Anchorage police under
preferred the potential charges because considering the
children present did not always come into their thinking
when investigating an assault.
Mr. Shaffer strongly endorsed the legislation. He stated it
was one of the most fundamentally impactful bills for the
protection of children that he could think of. He
considered the situation similar to the fact that there
were laws against dealing of drugs and laws and increased
penalties for dealing in schools. Similarly, he argued,
there was a different quality to violent acts, such as
assault, when the acts occurred in the presence of
children, whether children witness the violence directly or
were in close proximity to it.
7:32:15 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that written testimony could still
be submitted via email.
7:33:18 PM
Representative Coulombe asked for more information about
the specifics of the violation. She asked what the sentence
would be for a Class A misdemeanor. She requested
clarification on whether the penalty would involve a fine
or jail time.
Representative Josephson responded that he was trying to
recall the exact fine. He explained that there had
previously been a fine of $5,000, which was likely still in
that range, although he could be mistaken. He clarified
that the primary focus was typically on the potential
sentence, which ranged from zero days to 360 days. He also
noted that for a second domestic violence offense, there
would be a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days. The
sentences were usually handled promptly following a
conviction. He explained that if there was an extensive
criminal history, the sentence would increase, whereas for
a first offense, the sentence would generally be lower,
depending on the severity of the offense. He added that a
suspended sentence could also be considered.
Representative Coulombe recalled that Representative
Josephson had made a previous statement about proving the
violation beyond a reasonable doubt. She expressed concern
that children could become more involved in investigations
and potentially be required to testify or be questioned
about the crime. She was concerned that it could worsen the
trauma for children who had witnessed the crime.
Representative Josephson responded that he may have caused
some confusion by discussing reasonable doubt in the
context of felony aggravators, which could increase the
sentence. He clarified that, while a person could waive
their right to have a jury review an aggravator, the bill
pertained to a misdemeanor. However, he acknowledged that
if the defendant opted for a trial and claimed they did not
commit the crime, the prosecution would have to prove the
case beyond a reasonable doubt. He explained that in many
cases, defendants entered a no-contest plea, in which case
the prosecutor would need to provide the relevant facts in
a charging document or affidavit, and children would not
necessarily be required to testify.
Representative Coulombe remarked that the clarification was
helpful.
7:36:44 PM
Co-Chair Johnson asked whether the charge would be
standalone.
Representative Josephson confirmed that it would not be a
standalone charge, as the assault would need to be charged
and proven before the violation could be considered.
Co-Chair Johnson asked for clarification that after the
assault had been established, there would be no need to
question the child specifically to verify the occurrence of
the assault.
Representative Josephson replied that the charging officer
might interview witnesses who could confirm that they had
witnessed the assault. In such cases, the child might not
need to be directly involved in the investigation. He also
mentioned that a representative from Community Assistance
Response and Emergency Services (CARES) or a similar
organization might interview the child if necessary. There
could also be a referral to the Office of Child Services
(OCS). He acknowledged that it was not a pleasant situation
or experience.
Representative Josephson noted that in Anchorage, with a
population of around 300,000 people, there were
approximately 250 misdemeanors charged each year. However,
the number of convictions were significantly lower, with
only around 40 or 50 convictions. The decrease meant that
roughly one in five cases resulted in a conviction. He
speculated that the other four cases likely did not result
in a conviction because the case was weak, or because the
defendant entered into a plea agreement. In such cases, the
defendant might plead no contest to the assault charge and
have the assault in the presence of a child charge
dismissed. The approach would save time for everyone
involved, including the prosecutor, defense, and the court
system.
Representative Cronk asked whether the intention was to
deter crime, and if so, what Representative Josephson
thought the impact would be.
Representative Josephson responded the question was a
difficult one and there could be many variables at play. He
shared that in 2018, 271 charges were filed in Anchorage,
with a slight increase in 2019 before dropping to 176
charges in 2023. He thought that the decrease could be
related to COVID-19, but emphasized that, like any other
criminal charge, the hope was that there would be a public
service announcement effect. He explained that people would
understand that committing violence in front of children
would have more severe consequences.
Representative Cronk asked why the offense could not be
classified as a felony.
Representative Josephson responded that the House Judiciary
Committee had initially considered the possibility. He
explained that while it could be attached to a felony
charge, the elements of the felony offense would still need
to be met in order for an indictment to be made. He
acknowledged that, based on his own experience, a
misdemeanor was the appropriate classification for the
offense.
Representative Cronk expressed that in his opinion, there
was not enough protection for children and that harsher
penalties would be preferable.
7:42:11 PM
Representative Ortiz referenced the earlier question from
Representative Coulombe and asked whether there had been
prosecutions related to domestic violence that considered
the impact on children prior to the introduction of the
bill. He asked if the experience of child in witnessing
domestic violence had ever been criminally addressed in
such cases, particularly in relation to felony charges.
Representative Josephson responded that he would need to
review the "endangering the welfare of a child" statute.
However, he believed that it would likely not be relevant
to the discussion at hand. He explained that the treatment
of violence in front of children differed between
municipalities, citing Anchorage as an example where the
issue was treated more intensively. In Alaska, however,
violence committed in front of children was treated in the
same manner as always, with no separate charge for
committing a violent act in the presence of a child. He
clarified that this difference in approach was primarily
between Anchorage and the rest of the state.
Representative Ortiz understood that municipalities like
Anchorage had taken a more serious approach to such crimes;
however, state prosecutors had never charged a perpetrator
for the impact of violence on a child in the past.
Representative Josephson responded in the affirmative. He
further explained that while the state had not taken the
approach, life could still become difficult for the
perpetrator. There could be custody disputes, which he was
familiar with from his experience practicing divorce law
for nine years. The perpetrator could be required to attend
a batterer's course, lose custody, face divorce attorney
fees, or deal with restraining orders, all of which could
result in significant ramifications.
Representative Tomaszewski asked about the connection
between the specific charge in the bill and the provisions
in AS 12.55.155. He referenced the sentencing factors
related to aggravation and mitigation. The bill appeared to
increase the penalties for a specific charge, rather than
adding a separate charge altogether, and he asked for
clarification on whether it was similar to a felony under
AS 12.55.155, subsection 18(c).
Representative Josephson responded that the existence of AS
12.55.155 subsection 18(c) illustrated that there were
already provisions in the felony context to enhance
sentences, which was a similar concept to HB 11. Although
the sentencing provision in the felony context might seem
similar, the bill was introducing a standalone misdemeanor
linked to assault. He clarified that a prosecutor could
face difficulties if they attempted to charge both a
misdemeanor and a felony with similar aggravating
circumstances, as it would be complicated to argue for both
charges in court. He reiterated that the bill was different
because it was a standalone misdemeanor tied to assault.
Co-Chair Foster noted that there were eight fiscal notes.
7:48:18 PM
JAMES STINSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, reviewed the fiscal impact
note from DOA with OMB component 43 and control code GBLwE.
He explained that the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) was
requesting one attorney to meet the anticipated workload.
He acknowledged that the charge was attached to an audit
and applied statewide in state statute, but noted that it
would likely be applied differently in various
jurisdictions. He emphasized his main concern was ensuring
that the agency was adequately resourced.
Co-Chair Foster noted that there was a cost of $215,400 for
OMB component 43.
TERRANCE HAAS, PUBLIC DEFENDER, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), reviewed
the fiscal note from DOA with OMB component 1631 and
control code KlxXr. The Public Defender Agency (PDA) was
also requesting $215,400.
Representative Ortiz noted that the two numbers for the two
fiscal notes were identical and questioned if it was a
mistake.
Mr. Haas confirmed that the cost was indeed $215,400, which
was the cost for one attorney position located in
Anchorage. He assured the committee that the two identical
numbers were not a mistake, as each department required one
attorney, thus explaining the matching costs.
Co-Chair Foster moved on to the next department.
7:51:17 PM
TERI WEST, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), reviewed the
indeterminate fiscal impact note from the Department of
Corrections (DOC) with the OMB component 1381 and control
code zPPdd. She explained that the bill would legislate a
new crime and there was insufficient data to determine its
specific impact on the department. If the bill were to
pass, the department would monitor its impact on the
population and any potential fiscal effects. If the impact
proved to be small, the department had the capacity to
submit a zero note and meet the needs accordingly.
Co-Chair Foster invited the next department to present its
fiscal note.
Ms. Kemp relayed that DOL submitted a zero fiscal note with
OMB component 2202 and control code bFEql. She explained
that the department understood that it could absorb the
costs of the bill. The referred charge would be attached to
an existing charge, as pointed out by Representative
Josephson. The department anticipated no additional costs
and believed it could manage the fiscal impact without
issue.
7:53:20 PM
Ms. Purinton reviewed three fiscal notes from DPS: OMB
component 2325 for the Alaska State Troopers Detachment
with control code jMgpf, OMB component 2744 for the Alaska
Bureau of Investigation with the Alaska State Troopers with
the control code yFwWi, and OMB component 3200 for the
Criminal Justice Information Services Program with control
code LwqrZ. She explained that all three were zero fiscal
notes. The department did not anticipate a significant
fiscal impact from the bill and believed any additional
work could be absorbed with existing resources.
Co-Chair Foster invited the next department to present its
fiscal note.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA STATE COURT SYSTEM,
reviewed the zero fiscal impact note from the Alaska State
Court System (ASCS) with OMB component 768 and control code
QuZVV. She explained that the cases would almost always be
aligned with other ongoing cases, specifically with an
additional charge in an ongoing assault case. The court
system could absorb any additional work with existing
resources.
Representative Galvin asked for confirmation that the OMB
component number for the court system was 768.
Ms. Meade responded in the affirmative.
Representative Galvin noted that earlier, testimony had
been received from two different organizations,
specifically PDA and OPA, both of which had requested
additional attorneys. She asked why the departments would
need another attorney when the bill merely added an
additional charge to an existing assault charge.
Ms. Meade replied that she did not work directly with the
agencies on their fiscal notes. She thought that each
agency conducted its own assessment of the impact the bill
would have on their staff and resources. She clarified
that, for the court system, even an increase of 50 more
cases would not require the addition of a new judge. She
explained that it would take a much larger increase in
cases to justify a fiscal note. While the bill would result
in some additional work, it did not lead to significant new
costs for the court system.
Representative Galvin remarked that she was unfamiliar with
the process of fiscal notes for criminal cases. She
suggested that it might be helpful to hear from PDA and OPA
about how many extra hours of work were anticipated.
Co-Chair Foster agreed that it was a good question and
asked to hear from James Stinson from OPA.
7:58:00 PM
Mr. Stinson responded that the bill was a tool designed to
facilitate prosecution, which was a reasonable policy
decision. He did not think it was surprising that the bill
would lead to increased workload for agencies, and he
elaborated that OPA had evaluated the potential impact
based on the specifics of the charge and its connection to
other cases. The bill would not result in a fiscal note for
prosecuting agencies, but it would make defense more
difficult because the addition of another charge to an
assault case would complicate the situation for the
defendant.
Mr. Stinson explained that in domestic violence cases,
facts were often not clear, and charge bargaining was a
routine process. The additional work usually fell on the
defense, especially in cases where the defendant might not
fully understand the charges, particularly in the context
of a new charge like assault in the presence of a child.
The new charge had broader implications, as the definition
of "presence" included not only being seen by the child but
also being heard or simply being in the vicinity. He
anticipated litigation around the broader definition, which
led to increased client control issues. Additionally, the
consequences for the defendant could be severe if the
defendant was charged with two domestic violence offenses,
which might embolden prosecutors to bring forward cases
that they would otherwise consider weak or dismiss.
Representative Galvin asked Mr. Stinson to estimate the
number of cases handled that were annually and whether the
complexity of the new charge would lead to more time spent
on each case, regardless of the overall number of cases.
Mr. Stinson replied that presently, the charge was not in
state statute. He noted that Anchorage handled around 250
family violence charges annually. He anticipated that
similar cases would be charged across the entire state if
the bill were to pass, assuming probable cause for the
assault in the presence of a child.
Representative Galvin requested Mr. Haas from PDA provide
additional insight on the matter.
Mr. Haas agreed with Mr. Stinson's comments, adding that
from the defendant's perspective, the new charge
significantly altered the situation. He pointed out that
adding a misdemeanor charge would double the defendant's
potential liability, which would complicate the defense and
increase the work required from defense attorneys.
Representative Galvin asked how the increased liability
would be relevant to costs and whether defense attorneys
would need to adjust insurance or other measures.
Mr. Haas explained that the issue was not about insurance
but rather the defendant's exposure to a more serious
potential sentence. If the defendant was charged with a
single misdemeanor, they might face a maximum of one year
in jail. However, with the addition of another misdemeanor
charge, the defendant could face up to two years in jail,
which would significantly impact the complexity of the
case. The new charge would lead to increased efforts by
defense attorneys to resolve the case and would raise
additional considerations for the defendant.
8:02:37 PM
Representative Josephson thought that the explanations from
Mr. Haas and Mr. Stinson were impressive. He noted that
there were approximately 200 cases in Anchorage annually,
which represented about 40 percent of the state's cases. He
speculated that there could be around 250 cases across
Alaska with the new statewide statute. He added that while
Anchorage would continue to handle its own cases, the other
regions of the state would now be dealing with these
charges under the state statute. The bill would not add any
new cases, but it would simply add two charges for the same
case.
Representative Galvin noted that after hearing from the
court system, it felt like there might be too much focus on
the fiscal impact, but after hearing from the sponsor, it
made sense to her that the proposal was reasonable.
Representative Josephson remarked that the committee's job
was to thoroughly examine fiscal notes and he agreed that
Representative Galvin's question was valuable. He asked for
the committee's indulgence to allow Ms. Keller to quickly
go through a PowerPoint presentation.
8:05:14 PM
LISA KELLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
introduced a PowerPoint presentation "House Bill 11" dated
April 30, 2024 (copy on file). She quickly advanced through
slides 1 through 3 and summarized the details, noting that
the concept of assault in the presence of a child was
derived from the Anchorage Municipal Code 8.10.050. She
highlighted the factors of aggravation and mitigation in AS
12.55.155, which already addressed domestic violence in
felony contexts. She advanced to slide 4 and explained that
the bill was addressing details of family violence, which
was a long-standing issue, and referred to a 2020 report
showing that 19.1 percent of adults had been exposed to
intimate partner violence. The violence had an immense
impact on children and their developing brains, as
indicated by Mr. Schaffer's testimony. She also pointed out
that violence victimization had increased, leading to a
larger impact on children.
Ms. Keller continued to slide 5, which illustrated the
number of domestic violence cases filed annually in Alaska.
She highlighted the percentages on the right side of the
slide, showing an increase in the percentages of domestic
violence cases, though the number remained high. She
continued to slide 6 of the presentation with data on
domestic violence charges in Anchorage, where the majority
of cases were misdemeanors, while felonies represented a
much smaller portion. She continued to slide 7, which
compared family violence charges statewide, showing a
slight decrease over time. Ms. Keller noted that in 2023,
the number had even decreased further, though there was no
slide to reference the specific point.
Ms. Keller continued on slide 8 which included information
on maltreatment. She moved to slide 9 which indicated which
states recognized exposure to domestic violence as
maltreatment, including Alaska. She continued to slide 10
and explained that six states considered it a separate
crime to commit domestic violence in the presence of a
child. She noted that further research indicated
approximately 26 states and Puerto Rico had some form of
protection for children exposed to domestic violence. She
explained that the ways in which these protections were
charged and enacted varied by jurisdiction.
Ms. Keller advanced to slide 11 and emphasized that the
laws and reactions were well-known and contributed to
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scores. There were
observable immediate reactions to intimate partner violence
and long-term reactions. She continued on slide 13 and
explained that prolonged exposure to domestic violence had
observable negative effects on children that detrimental to
a child's development. She acknowledged that while not all
children were "scarred for life," there were significant
long-term effects that impacted their future lives. She
explained that children might have various reactions
depending on age, noting that the responses would
accumulate over the course of a child's lifetime.
Ms. Keller moved to slide 14 and emphasized that
prosecutorial discretion played a significant role in how
domestic violence cases were handled. Specifically, the
prosecutor had the ability to decide how to charge the
offense, including how many counts to file. She raised the
issue of whether to charge one count for each child present
in a domestic violence incident or just a single charge.
She relayed that the decision ultimately rested with the
prosecutor.
8:09:47 PM
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for Friday, May
3, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.
HB 11 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
8:10:19 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 11 Assault in the Presence of a Child Presentation.pptx |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 Alaska Family Services Letter of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 WISH Letter of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 68 Sex and Human Trafficking Sectional 5.3.23.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 Summary of Changes 5.5.23.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB068 - Public Testimony Letters of Support (submitted 03-23-23).pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB068 -Public Testimony Letters of Opposition (submitted 03-23-23).pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 259 Public Testimony Rec'd by 042924.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 259 |
| HB 68 Public Testimony Rec'd by 042924.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |