Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
04/29/2019 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB49 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 49-CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE
1:21:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 49, "An Act relating to criminal law and
procedure; relating to controlled substances; relating to
probation; relating to sentencing; relating to reports of
involuntary commitment; amending Rule 6, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee as the working document was the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 49, Version 31-GH1029\M. The
committee had adopted Version M as the working document during
the previous committee meeting.]
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the committee would take up
amendments to HB 49. He stated for the record that Legislative
Legal Services has permission to make any technical and
conforming changes to the bill.
1:22:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31-
GH1029\M.6, Radford, 4/28/19, which read:
Page 28, following line 22:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 49. AS 28.35.030(o) is amended to read:
(o) Upon request, the department shall review a
driver's license revocation imposed under (n)(3) of
this section and, unless the revocation was ordered in
a case in which the person was also convicted of a
crime under AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.210, 11.41.280,
11.41.282, or a similar law in another jurisdiction,
(1) may restore the driver's license if
(A) the license has been revoked for a
period of at least 10 years;
(B) the person has not been convicted of a
[DRIVING-RELATED] criminal offense in the 10 years
preceding the request for restoration of [SINCE] the
license [WAS REVOKED]; and
(C) the person provides proof of financial
responsibility;
(2) shall restore the driver's license if
(A) the person has been granted limited
license privileges under AS 28.15.201(g) and has
successfully driven under that limited license for
three years without having the limited license
privileges revoked;
(B) the person has successfully completed a
court-ordered treatment program under AS 28.35.028 or
a rehabilitative treatment program under
AS 28.15.201(h);
(C) the person has not been convicted of a
violation of AS 28.35.030 or 28.35.032 or a similar
law or ordinance of this or another jurisdiction since
the license was revoked;
(D) the person is otherwise eligible to
have the person's driving privileges restored as
provided in AS 28.15.211; in an application under this
subsection, a person whose license was revoked for a
violation of AS 28.35.030(n) or 28.35.032(p) is not
required to submit compliance as required under
AS 28.35.030(h) or 28.35.032(l); and
(E) the person provides proof of financial
responsibility."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 29, following line 26:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 51. AS 28.35.032(q) is amended to read:
(q) Upon request, the department shall review a
driver's license revocation imposed under (p)(3) of
this section and, unless the revocation was ordered in
a case in which the person was also convicted of a
crime under AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.210, 11.41.280,
11.41.282, or a similar law in another jurisdiction,
may restore the driver's license if
(1) the license has been revoked for a
period of at least 10 years;
(2) the person has not been convicted of a
criminal offense in the 10 years preceding the request
for restoration of [SINCE] the license [WAS REVOKED];
and
(3) the person provides proof of financial
responsibility."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 40, line 7:
Delete "Act."
Insert "Act;"
Page 40, following line 7:
Insert new paragraphs to read:
"(36) AS 28.35.030(o), as amended by sec.
49 of this Act;
(37) AS 28.35.032(q), as amended by sec. 51
of this Act."
Page 40, line 16:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 40, line 27:
Delete "sec. 52"
Insert "sec. 54"
Page 41, line 1:
Delete "Section 62"
Insert "Section 64"
Delete "sec. 62"
Insert "sec. 64"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
1:22:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said Amendment 1 relates to the crime of
driving under the influence (DUI). She explained that a person
who commits felony DUI which she clarified means that the
person has committed DUI three times can have his/her drivers
license reinstated within 10 years. She explained that, if the
person commits a driving-related offense during that 10-year
period, the result is "doomsday" and the person can never have
his/her license reinstated. She said Amendment 1 would make it
so that a person can have his/her license reinstated 10 years
after his/her last driving-related offense. She noted that the
language in Amendment 1 is already in HB 145 and the Senate's
version of the crime bill. She said it is unclear which bill
will ultimately be "the vehicle," so she would like the language
added to HB 49.
1:24:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for an example of the sort of
person who would benefit from the adoption of Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX established a scenario in which a person
in his/her 20s is convicted of felony DUI in 2010 and then is
caught driving while his/her license is revoked in 2015. She
explained that person would currently be forever barred from
having his/her license reinstated. She said Amendment 1 would
allow the person to get his/her license back in 2025, assuming
no further driving-related offenses. She noted that the
reinstatement provision in Amendment 1 would only apply to
drivers who did not kill or seriously maim another person during
the commission of their offenses. She said the amendment would
make it more difficult for drivers who have killed or seriously
maimed another person to have their licenses reinstated.
1:27:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how Amendment 1 would deal with
individuals who were charged with killing or maiming someone but
pled down to a lesser, nonviolent offense.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said Amendment 1 would require a
conviction. She noted that, as the law currently stands, those
individuals [who pled down] can have their licenses reinstated
if they do not have a driving-related offense within 10 years.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the amendment would remove the
words "driving-related from the subparagraph dealing with the
10-year period. He asked about the threshold after which a
driving offense becomes criminal. He asked whether reckless
driving is a criminal offense, or if it falls under another
category.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she believes reckless driving is a
misdemeanor but running a stop sign is not a criminal offense.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if someone caught driving 120 miles
per hour would qualify under the language in Amendment 1, as
speeding is a traffic offense rather than a criminal offense.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that is correct but noted that
somebody driving 120 miles per hour would likely be charged and
convicted of reckless driving.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed about the charge but expressed
doubt that the person would be convicted. He noted that such
charges are frequently pled down. He said he can envision
scenarios in which criminal conduct nets only a traffic offense.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said Representative Eastman's point would
be better addressed by the Department of Law (DOL) or
Representative Kopp.
1:30:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP mentioned that he is a retired law
enforcement officer. He noted that the underlying facts always
influence the severity of the charge. He explained that driving
120 miles per hour on an empty stretch of road to Fairbanks
would likely not result in criminal charges. He said driving
120 miles per hour through Anchorage would surely result in a
reckless driving charge because of the opportunity to collide
with a pedestrian or another vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX addressed the following to Representative
Eastman: nder the current law, the person has not been
convicted of a driving-related criminal offense. So this is
actually tightening things up. Currently, they can be convicted
of just a driving-related offense, so the same questions relate
to that as relate to the law as it now exists."
1:31:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if the administration has a position on
Amendment 1.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, confirmed that the provision contained within
Amendment 1 is also in Governor Dunleavy's crime package. She
said the administration does not object.
1:32:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:32:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 31-
GH1029\M.3, Radford, 4/28/29, which read:
Page 35, line 9, following "action;":
Insert "and"
Page 35, lines 10 - 12:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Page 36, line 7:
Delete "and"
Page 36, line 9, following "offense":
Insert "; and
(5) the number of crime victims that
participated in the prosecution of and court process
relating to the offense in which the person was a
victim"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES explained that Amendment 2 addresses a
drafting error. She said it would move a DOL reporting
requirement from section 54 to section 56. She explained that
the requirement is for DOL to report the number of crime victims
that participated in the prosecution of and court process
relating to the offense in which the person was a victim.
1:33:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
1:33:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 31-
GH1029\M.4, Radford, 4/28/29, which read:
Page 13, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 26. AS 11.61.120(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the crime of harassment in
the second degree if, with intent to harass or annoy
another person, that person
(1) insults, taunts, or challenges another
person in a manner likely to provoke an immediate
violent response;
(2) telephones another and fails to
terminate the connection with intent to impair the
ability of that person to place or receive telephone
calls;
(3) makes repeated telephone calls at
extremely inconvenient hours;
(4) makes an anonymous or obscene telephone
call, an obscene electronic communication, or a
telephone call or electronic communication that
threatens physical injury or sexual contact;
(5) subjects another person to offensive
physical contact;
(6) except as provided in AS 11.61.116,
publishes or distributes electronic or printed
photographs, pictures, or films that show the
genitals, anus, or female breast of the other person
or show that person engaged in a sexual act; [OR]
(7) repeatedly sends or publishes an
electronic communication that insults, taunts,
challenges, or intimidates a person under 18 years of
age in a manner that places the person in reasonable
fear of physical injury; or
(8) under circumstances not proscribed
under AS 11.41.455 or AS 11.61.125, repeatedly sends
to another person, publishes, or distributes
electronic or printed photographs, pictures, or films
that show the genitals of any person."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 39, following line 28:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(26) AS 11.61.120(a), as amended by sec.
26 of this Act;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 39, line 29:
Delete "sec. 26"
Insert "sec. 27"
Page 39, line 30:
Delete "sec. 27"
Insert "sec. 28"
Page 39, line 31:
Delete "sec. 28"
Insert "sec. 29"
Page 40, line 1:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 40, line 2:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 40, line 3:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 40, line 4:
Delete "sec. 32"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 40, line 5:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 40, line 6:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 40, line 7:
Delete "sec. 40"
Insert "sec. 41"
Page 40, line 10:
Delete "sec. 35"
Insert "sec. 36"
Page 40, line 11:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 40, line 12:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 40, line 13:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 40, line 14:
Delete "sec. 39"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 40, line 15:
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 40, line 16:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 40, line 19:
Delete "sec. 42"
Insert "sec. 43"
Page 40, line 20:
Delete "sec. 43"
Insert "sec. 44"
Page 40, line 21:
Delete "sec. 44"
Insert "sec. 45"
Page 40, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 40, line 27:
Delete "sec. 52"
Insert "sec. 53"
Page 41, line 1:
Delete "Section 62"
Insert "Section 63"
Delete "sec. 62"
Insert "sec. 63"
1:33:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES explained that Amendment 3 addresses the
conduct of repeatedly sending unsolicited and unwanted images of
genitalia to another person. She said Amendment 3 would make it
harassment in the second degree, a class B misdemeanor. She
said this is a provision that was taken from the governor's bill
related to sexual offenses.
1:34:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how this provision came to be part
of the governor's crime package.
MS. SCHROEDER said the provision would close a potential
loophole in the law. She stated that, in today's age, it has
become more common for people to electronically send such photos
to each other. She referenced a case in which a person
repeatedly sent images of genitalia after having been told to
stop. She characterized the conduct as offensive and remarked
that DOL did not have the tools to address it. She said the
provision contained within Amendment 3 would close that
loophole.
1:35:07 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
1:35:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 31-
GH1029\M.2, Radford, 4/28/29, which read:
Page 22, line 25, through page 23, line 1:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 40, line 6:
Delete "Act;"
Insert "Act."
Page 40, line 7:
Delete all material.
Page 40, line 15:
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 47"
Page 40, line 16:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 48"
Page 40, line 19:
Delete "sec. 42"
Insert "sec. 41"
Page 40, line 20:
Delete "sec. 43"
Insert "sec. 42"
Page 40, line 21:
Delete "sec. 44"
Insert "sec. 43"
Page 40, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 44"
Page 40, line 27:
Delete "sec. 52"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 41, line 1:
Delete "Section 62"
Insert "Section 61"
Delete "sec. 62"
Insert "sec. 61"
1:35:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES explained that Amendment 4 also addresses
a drafting error. She said it would remove section 40 from the
bill because the bill no longer has provisions related to the
viewing or production of an indecent picture.
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
1:35:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 31-
GH1029\M.10, Radford, 4/29/29, which read:
Page 21, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 37. AS 12.55.125(i) is amended to read:
(i) A defendant convicted of
(1) sexual assault in the first degree,
sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, or sex
trafficking in the first degree under
AS 11.66.110(a)(2) may be sentenced to a definite term
of imprisonment of not more than 99 years and shall be
sentenced to a definite term within the following
presumptive ranges, subject to adjustment as provided
in AS 12.55.155 - 12.55.175:
(A) if the offense is a first felony
conviction, the offense does not involve circumstances
described in (B) of this paragraph, and the victim was
(i) less than 13 years of age, 25 to 35
years;
(ii) 13 years of age or older, 20 to 30
years;
(B) if the offense is a first felony
conviction and the defendant possessed a firearm, used
a dangerous instrument, or caused serious physical
injury during the commission of the offense, 25 to 35
years;
(C) if the offense is a second felony
conviction and does not involve circumstances
described in (D) of this paragraph, 30 to 40 years;
(D) if the offense is a second felony
conviction and the defendant has a prior conviction
for a sexual felony, 35 to 45 years;
(E) if the offense is a third felony
conviction and the defendant is not subject to
sentencing under (F) of this paragraph or (l) of this
section, 40 to 60 years;
(F) if the offense is a third felony
conviction, the defendant is not subject to sentencing
under (l) of this section, and the defendant has two
prior convictions for sexual felonies, 99 years;
(2) unlawful exploitation of a minor under
AS 11.41.455(c)(2), [ONLINE] enticement of a minor
under AS 11.41.452(e), or attempt, conspiracy, or
solicitation to commit sexual assault in the first
degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree,
or sex trafficking in the first degree under
AS 11.66.110(a)(2) may be sentenced to a definite term
of imprisonment of not more than 99 years and shall be
sentenced to a definite term within the following
presumptive ranges, subject to adjustment as provided
in AS 12.55.155 - 12.55.175:
(A) if the offense is a first felony
conviction, the offense does not involve circumstances
described in (B) of this paragraph, and the victim was
(i) under 13 years of age, 20 to 30 years;
(ii) 13 years of age or older, 15 to 30
years;
(B) if the offense is a first felony
conviction and the defendant possessed a firearm, used
a dangerous instrument, or caused serious physical
injury during the commission of the offense, 25 to 35
years;
(C) if the offense is a second felony
conviction and does not involve circumstances
described in (D) of this paragraph, 25 to 35 years;
(D) if the offense is a second felony
conviction and the defendant has a prior conviction
for a sexual felony, 30 to 40 years;
(E) if the offense is a third felony
conviction, the offense does not involve circumstances
described in (F) of this paragraph, and the defendant
is not subject to sentencing under (l) of this
section, 35 to 50 years;
(F) if the offense is a third felony
conviction, the defendant is not subject to sentencing
under (l) of this section, and the defendant has two
prior convictions for sexual felonies, 99 years;
(3) sexual assault in the second degree,
sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree, [ONLINE]
enticement of a minor under AS 11.41.452(d), unlawful
exploitation of a minor under AS 11.41.455(c)(1), or
distribution of child pornography under
AS 11.61.125(e)(2) may be sentenced to a definite term
of imprisonment of not more than 99 years and shall be
sentenced to a definite term within the following
presumptive ranges, subject to adjustment as provided
in AS 12.55.155 - 12.55.175:
(A) if the offense is a first felony
conviction, five to 15 years;
(B) if the offense is a second felony
conviction and does not involve circumstances
described in (C) of this paragraph, 10 to 25 years;
(C) if the offense is a second felony
conviction and the defendant has a prior conviction
for a sexual felony, 15 to 30 years;
(D) if the offense is a third felony
conviction and does not involve circumstances
described in (E) of this paragraph, 20 to 35 years;
(E) if the offense is a third felony
conviction and the defendant has two prior convictions
for sexual felonies, 99 years;
(4) sexual assault in the third degree,
incest, indecent exposure in the first degree,
possession of child pornography, distribution of child
pornography under AS 11.61.125(e)(1), or attempt,
conspiracy, or solicitation to commit sexual assault
in the second degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the
second degree, unlawful exploitation of a minor, or
distribution of child pornography, may be sentenced to
a definite term of imprisonment of not more than 99
years and shall be sentenced to a definite term within
the following presumptive ranges, subject to
adjustment as provided in AS 12.55.155 - 12.55.175:
(A) if the offense is a first felony
conviction, two to 12 years;
(B) if the offense is a second felony
conviction and does not involve circumstances
described in (C) of this paragraph, eight to 15 years;
(C) if the offense is a second felony
conviction and the defendant has a prior conviction
for a sexual felony, 12 to 20 years;
(D) if the offense is a third felony
conviction and does not involve circumstances
described in (E) of this paragraph, 15 to 25 years;
(E) if the offense is a third felony
conviction and the defendant has two prior convictions
for sexual felonies, 99 years."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, following line 24:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 41. AS 12.55.185(10) is amended to read:
(10) "most serious felony" means
(A) arson in the first degree, sex
trafficking in the first degree under
AS 11.66.110(a)(2), [ONLINE] enticement of a minor
under AS 11.41.452(e), or any unclassified or class A
felony prescribed under AS 11.41; or
(B) an attempt, or conspiracy to commit, or
criminal solicitation under AS 11.31.110 of, an
unclassified felony prescribed under AS 11.41;"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 31:
Delete "online"
Insert "[ONLINE]"
Page 40, line 7:
Delete "sec. 40"
Insert "sec. 42"
Page 40, line 12:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 40, line 13:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 40, line 14:
Delete "sec. 39"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 40, line 15:
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 40, line 16:
Delete "sec. 49 "
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 40, line 19:
Delete "sec. 42"
Insert "sec. 44"
Page 40, line 20:
Delete "sec. 43"
Insert "sec. 45"
Page 40, line 21:
Delete "sec. 44"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 40, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 47"
Page 40, line 27:
Delete "sec. 52"
Insert "sec. 54"
Page 41, line 1:
Delete "Section 62"
Insert "Section 64"
Delete "sec. 62"
Insert "sec. 64"
1:35:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES explained that Amendment 5 also addresses
a drafting error. She said the word "online" needs to be
removed from the sex felonies sentencing statutes and the sexual
felony statute.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the drafters sought to remove all
instances of "online," but had missed a few.
1:36:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that Amendment 5 would add a new
section section 37 to the bill. He asked if the new section
would be replacing something from the original bill.
1:36:48 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:38 p.m.
1:38:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed to section 5 of Version M, noting the crime
referenced therein would go from being "online enticement of a
minor" to just "enticement of a minor." He spoke to the
intention of removing "online" from that provision of AS
11.41.452(d). He said the Office of the Attorney General had
looked through the bill and identified three additional places
where the drafters had not removed "online." He noted that
Amendment 5 addresses those additional instances of the word.
He asked Ms. Schroeder to further explain.
1:39:25 PM
MS. SCHROEDER explained that Version M deletes the word "online"
from the crime of online enticement such that any solicitation
of a minor, regardless of whether or not a computer is used,
would be criminalized. Se remarked that, to that end, a number
of conforming adjustments need to be made to the sex offense
sentencing statute, which she identified as located on page 1 of
Amendment 5. She said the new section to be inserted section
37 would remove the word "online" from AS 12.55.125(i)(2) and
AS 12.55.125(i)(3). She added that the definition of "most
serious felony" includes online enticement, so the word "online"
needs to be deleted there as well. She identified the location
of the relevant language on page 4 of the amendment in lines 5
through 13. She said the language on page 4, lines 17 through
19 would delete "online" from the definition of sexual felony.
1:41:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if, by removing the word "online,"
the committee would be broadening the criminal offense so that
it would encompass online occurrences without specifically
mentioning them.
MS. SCHROEDER answered, "That is exactly correct." She
clarified that the current law requires the use of a computer to
facilitate the solicitation. She noted that solicitation can
easily happen in person or through a note, so it does not make
sense to restrict that conduct to just a computer. She
explained that Amendment 5 would broaden the offense and allow
for criminal penalties to address that solicitation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how this type of behavior is
currently addressed and would be addressed if Amendment 5 were
not adopted.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that the change to the criminal offense
is already included in Version M. She said it would be
confusing for practitioners if Amendment 5 is not adopted
because the State of Alaska (SOA) would have a crime for
enticement of a minor but would not have a corresponding
sentencing statute. She said the sentence for a sex offense
includes the name of the statute and the penalties. She said
DOL would have to litigate that and may lose. She said the
cleanup amendments are necessary.
1:43:09 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
1:43:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 6, labeled 31-
GH1029\M.5, Radford, 4/28/29, which read:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "relating to a pretrial risk assessment
instrument;"
Page 29, line 27, through page 31, line 19:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 40, line 27:
Delete "sec. 52"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 41, line 1:
Delete "Section 62"
Insert "Section 60"
Delete "sec. 62"
Insert "sec. 60"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES explained that Amendment 6 would remove
sections 50 and 51, which would require the pretrial risk
assessment tool to be verified by peer review.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that there was unexpected confusion about
those provisions. He noted as well that they had initially been
added to HB 145 via an amendment and were subsequently included
in Version M of HB 49.
1:43:59 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, explained
that the provisions would create an unwanted anomaly. She
explained that the current language of the bill stipulates that
the pretrial risk assessment tool must go through certain steps
before it can be adopted. She said the current tool has not
gone through those steps and thus, should HB 49 become law,
would be incompliant with statute and not usable. She noted
that there are other provisions in law that require the use of
the tool to help set bail. She said the issue with Version M is
that it would create a lot of gaps. She further explained the
anomaly of being required by statute to use a tool that has been
rendered unusable by other statutes. She said such a scenario
would put the Alaska Court System in a difficult position.
1:45:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, f we have a tool that has
problems and is not peer reviewed, should we be using it in the
first place?"
MS. MEADE said that question assumes things that she is not
prepared to address. She stated, "There is a tool, it has been
approved by the commissioner, and we are using it." She said
she is merely addressing the potential complications that would
result if Amendment 6 is not adopted and HB 49 becomes law.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the Alaska Court System
believes this issue should be addressed.
MS. MEADE answered that the Alaska Court System leaves those
decisions to the legislature.
1:46:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that he has spoken to Representative Shaw,
who made and moved the original amendment containing these
provisions. He said he suggested some fine-tuning and that the
provisions be encompassed in their own independent bill. He
said he would support an effort to appropriately ensure peer
review is part of the process going forward.
MS. MEADE noted that the tool is currently undergoing a
revalidation process by the University of Alaska - Anchorage
(UAA). She said that process will determine whether the tool
needs changing, and that it takes into consideration both the
data used to create the tool and the data collected since its
first use. She remarked that she is not sure how far along the
process is but noted that revalidation and recommendations for
changes would be coming in the summer.
1:47:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for more information about how the
peer review would work.
CHAIR CLAMAN said the original amendment mandating peer review
of the pretrial risk assessment tool was adopted to HB 145 and
then became part of Version M of HB 49. He explained that
Amendment 6 would remove those provisions from Version M. He
noted that he was informed by representatives from the
Department of Corrections that further revalidations of the tool
will occur every three years. He said the goal is to ensure
there are statutes mandating peer review of the process by the
next revalidation in three years.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that Amendment 6 would remove
those provisions because they would be inconsistent with
practicable activities.
MS. MEADE answered yes.
1:49:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for an explanation of peer review
within the context of the revalidation. She asked who the peers
of the UAA academics would be.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered a typical example of peer review involving
a hypothetical doctor who submits an article about knee
replacements to a journal, which in turn distributes the article
to be reviewed and responded to by other academics in the same
field with similar expertise. He said the provisions to be
removed by Amendment 6 would have mandated that the revalidation
of the pretrial risk assessment tool include feedback by
academics beyond UAA.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for confirmation that, without these
provisions or a separate individual bill containing the same
provisions, there would be no process UAA's revalidation results
to be sent to prosecutors and defense attorneys.
CHAIR CLAMAN said that is different from peer review.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, "Who are the peers?"
CHAIR CLAMAN said the peers would be other academics with a
background and expertise in the field of risk assessment tools.
He said the intent would be for them to look at the work done by
UAA and compare it with the work done in other states. He added
that UAA got the bid for doing the validation and its process is
in place. He said he has talked with DOC about whether it may
be able to add to that proposal and get the UAA analysis peer-
reviewed before finalization. He said that was not part of the
initial bid and whether DOC can mandate it is an open question.
1:52:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said peer review for doctors makes sense
because there are many doctors working on the university level.
She remarked that peer review in the context of a pretrial risk
assessment tool should involve people who are more involved with
its use than academics.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP drew attention to section 51 on page 30 of
Version M. He said the language therein describes peer review
and identifies the DOC commissioner as the person who determines
who is technically qualified to assess the tool. He explained
that the process being disputed is defined explicitly in the
language of the bill.
1:53:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, "How long do we expect this
process of peer review to take to where [sections 50 and 51]
would be helpful
CHAIR CLAMAN said the last he heard was that UAA predicts the
revalidation process will be completed by the end of June. He
stated that HB 49 would become law on July 1, after the
revalidation process is completed. He restated that the goal is
to bring the issue back up later and have peer review standards
in place for the next assessment in three years. He noted that
DOC could conceivably do another assessment before then but that
would raise questions of cost and best practices.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, "Do I understand then that if we
adopt this amendment, there won't be peer review for as much as
three years?"
CHAIR CLAMAN said he thinks Representative Eastman is confusing
peer review with revalidation. He said that, right now, peer
review is not possible without something for the peers to
review. He said the next time to do peer review of a validation
would be the next time DOC chooses to do a revalidation. He
added that whether that happens next year or in three years is
up to DOC.
1:55:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked if it is possible to put a different
effective date on that section of the bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that there is a lot of interest in moving
the bill forward. He compared the matter of peer review to the
matter of the crime of viewing or producing an indecent picture,
noting that the more the committee explored the issue, the more
confusing it became. He said the committee could delay HB 49 a
few days and attempt to create language to solve those issues,
but that would not align with the intention to move it quickly.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he understands then that it is a matter
of drafting time rather than the merits of peer review.
CHAIR CLAMAN said he is a supporter of peer review but thinks
the provisions are not yet ready to become law.
1:57:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN proposed and moved Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 6. He said the conceptual amendment would, in lieu
of removing the language in section 51, add an effective date
for that portion of the bill at 18 months from enactment. He
said that would allow time for revalidation and peer review.
CHAIR CLAMAN objected. He said that there is more work that
needs to be done to really make the provisions make sense.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for Representative Shaw's thoughts
given that the provisions in question were originally part of an
amendment he made.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW stated that he has no problem with the
changes. He mentioned that he believes the intent of the
language can be better realized at a later time.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for confirmation that he opposes
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 6.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW answered yes.
1:59:03 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Eastman voted in
favor of adopting Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 6.
Representatives Shaw, Kopp, Stutes, LeDoux, Wool, and Claman
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 6 was not adopted by a vote of 1-6.
1:59:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he opposes Amendment 6. He said it
is clear to him that the current pretrial risk assessment tool
is broken. He remarked that he was glad to see that peer review
would be added to the revalidation process. He expressed
concern that those provisions would be removed without any
guarantee that they will be reintroduced in a different form in
the future. He said SOA would continue to use a broken tool.
2:00:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recalled hearing testimony from UAA
representatives about the pretrial risk assessment tool. He
said he does not agree the system is broken. He said the
representatives presented data indicating good results. He
noted that some of the data presented was inconclusive and the
UAA representatives are awaiting other results. He remarked
that the pretrial risk assessment tool removed the financial
component from determining bail.
2:01:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN removed his objection to adopting Amendment 6.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kopp, Stutes,
LeDoux, Wool, Shaw, and Claman voted in favor of adopting
Amendment 6. Representative Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 6 was adopted by a vote of 6-1.
2:02:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW moved to adopt Amendment 7, labeled 31-
GH1029\M.9, Radford, 4/28/29, which read:
Page 38, lines 29 - 30:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 63. AS 11.46.980(d), 11.46.982; and
AS 12.55.135(l) are repealed."
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW explained that Amendment 7 would repeal AS
12.55.135(l), which limits jail time for "first-, second-, and
third-degree individuals" convicted of theft in the fourth
degree and similar offenses to 5 days, 10 days, and 15 days,
respectively. He said this repeal would subject those
individuals to the maximum penalty in statute.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Amendment 7 would also repeal AS
11.46.980(d) and AS 11 46.982, which relate to inflation
adjustments, which were portions of the bill that were removed
elsewhere.
2:03:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that Amendment 7 appears to
address an important oversight because the statutes to be
repealed all relate to recidivism and are subject to an enhanced
penalty. He said he appreciates the maker of the amendment for
catching that oversight and remarked, "You can never have too
many eyes go over these statutes."
2:03:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for DOL's opinion on Amendment 7.
MS. SCHROEDER said DOL views Amendment 7 as a cleanup amendment.
She said there are parts of the bill that would not work without
it.
2:04:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.
2:04:36 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:05 p.m.
2:05:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that DOL had communicated a concern about a
drafting error relating to the possession of marijuana. He
asked for confirmation that the issue has been resolved.
MS. SCHROEDER answered yes; Amendment 7 resolves the issue. She
explained that the drafting error would have legalized marijuana
for everyone, even those under the age of 21.
CHAIR CLAMAN said that by dealing with the issue, marijuana will
be treated like alcohol.
MS. SCHROEDER said yes.
2:05:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if it is still a felony for a person
over the age of 21 to possess marijuana on school grounds.
MS. SCHROEDER answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that conflicts with the earlier
statement that marijuana would be treated like alcohol.
MS. SCHROEDER confirmed that marijuana is treated differently in
that case. She clarified that marijuana is not treated exactly
like alcohol in Alaska as it is still a controlled substance.
She said it is not a crime to act within the confines of AS
17.38 but it is a crime to act outside of it.
2:07:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that if Version M is the sum total
of provisions addressing Senate Bill 91 [passed in the Twenty-
Ninth Alaska State Legislature], then she cannot support it.
She expressed hope that the bill would be amended in another
committee and will therefore vote to move Version M out of
committee.
2:07:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to report Version 31-GH1029\M of HB
49, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations
and attached fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Shaw, Kopp, Stutes,
LeDoux, Wool, and Claman voted in favor of moving the bill out
of committee. Representative Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 49(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB049 Work Draft Committee Substitute ver M 4.27.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/27/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB049 Sectional Analysis ver M (Prepared by the House Judiciary Committee) 4.29.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB049 Amendments #1-7 4.29.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB049 Amendments #1-7 HJUD Final Votes 4.29.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 49 |