Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/01/2023 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 | |
| HB66 | |
| HB28 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 66-CONTROLLED SUB.;HOMICIDE;GOOD TIME DEDUC.
1:01:42 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to homicide resulting from
conduct involving controlled substances; relating to the
computation of good time; and providing for an effective date."
1:02:02 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law
(DOL), referred to a document, titled "Controlled Substance
Statutes References Chart" [included in the committee packet].
He directed attention to the state drug classifications on page
2, noting that Fentanyl was a schedule 1A according to Alaska
Statutes. He proceeded to provide a summary of the controlled
substances found in schedule IA through VIA.
1:07:11 PM
MR. SKIDMORE returned to page 1 of the document, which
summarized the statutory tiers of misconduct involving a
controlled substance in the first through fifth degree. He
described the presumptive range in addition to the criminal
conduct associated with the first degree.
CHAIR VANCE asked why age 19 was chosen [in regard to the
conduct classified as misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the first and third degree].
MR. SKIDMORE said he did not know the answer. He added that he
would need to analyze the legislative history to understand that
policy decision.
CHAIR VANCE noted the lack of consistency in statute in terms of
the age of minors.
1:13:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH referred to the drug classifications on page
2 of the supporting document and asked whether the comprehensive
listing of schedule IA through VIA controlled substances
included lesser "B" or "C" tiers.
MR. SKIDMORE conveyed that additional subsections were not
utilized in this particular classification system.
1:13:58 PM
MR. SKIDMORE returned to page 1 and resumed his overview of the
controlled substances statutes reference chart, detailing
misconduct involving a controlled substance in the second
through fifth degree. He reiterated that this was not an
exhausted listing of the laws.
1:18:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suspected that the bill would give
prosecutors added discretion. He asked which schedule Adderall
fell under.
MR. SKIDMORE indicated that Adderall was a schedule IIA. He
disagreed with Representative Eastman's assertion that the bill
would provide prosecutors with greater discretion, adding that
HB 66 would simply change the classification of offense.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked:
What I mean by that is currently, you would not be
able to charge an individual for second degree murder
without the bill, and when the bill passes, if it
does, you would then have the discretion of being able
to charge some of the same conduct as second degree
murder. Is that correct?
MR. SKIDMORE acknowledged that it would change the
classification of offense from manslaughter to murder in the
second degree; however, he contended that such a change was not
providing additional discretion. He defined prosecutorial
discretion as deciding whether to charge a person, which would
not be impacted by the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what the bill would accomplish. He
considered a hypothetical scenario in which a parent shared
his/her Adderall prescription with a child. He asked whether
that conduct could be prosecuted as murder in the second degree
if the bill were to pass.
MR. SKIDMORE said the proposed legislation did not address
prescription sharing with a child. Nonetheless, he emphasized
that the conduct was illegal under current law, regardless of
the outcome of HB 66.
1:22:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the bill would change the
classification for that conduct.
MR. SKIDMORE answered no.
CHAIR VANCE directed attention to Section 1, paragraph (2) of
the bill, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(2) the person knowingly engages in conduct that
results in the death of another person under
circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to
the value of human life;
CHAIR VANCE asked whether "indifference to the value of human
life" should be referenced in paragraph (6) on page 2 of the
bill.
MR. SKIDMORE supposed one could argue the theory that the
distribution of drugs could be considered an extreme
indifference to the value of human life given the unregulated
increased use of Fentanyl. Ultimately, he opined that the
element of extreme indifference belonged under the provision for
murder in the second degree, as drafted. He remarked, "In order
for the state to get to a murder two, we would need to move the
subsection, as the bill proposes, from manslaughter to murder
two."
1:26:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how good behavior was determined by
the Department of Corrections (DOC).
1:27:23 PM
MIKE MATTHEWS, Lead Research Analyst, Division of Administrative
Services, DOC, offered to follow up with the requested
information, adding that the determination of "good time" was a
process that occurred within each individual institution.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how much a sentence could be reduced
for good behavior.
MR. MATTHEW answered one third.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked which offenses were excluded from
receiving good time.
MR. MATTHEW offered to follow up with the requested information.
MR. SKIDMORE, in response to Representative Gray, cited AS
33.20.010(a)(1)-(4), which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
(1) to a mandatory 99-year term of imprisonment
under AS 12.55.125(a) after June 27, 1996;
(2) to a definite term under AS 12.55.125(l);
(3) for a sexual felony under AS 12.55.125(i)
(A) and has one or more prior sexual felony
convictions as determined under AS 12.55.145(a)(4); or
(B) that is an unclassified or a class A felony;
or
(4) for an unclassified felony under AS 11.41.100
or 11.41.110.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether removing eligibility for a
good time deduction would remove a tool for encouraging good
behavior while incarcerated.
MR. MATTHEW offered to follow up with the requested information.
1:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the percentage of drug
dealers that were also drug users.
MR. SKIDMORE was unsure of the answer. He anecdotally reported
that there was significant overlap between those that use drugs
and distribute drugs to support their own addiction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how to reduce recidivism.
CHAIR VANCE asked Representative Gray to narrow the question.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how recidivism could be reduced for
individuals struggling with substance abuse issues.
MR. SKIDMORE indicated that one tool available to the courts was
rehabilitation, such as substance abuse treatment, which could
be received either in or out of custody. Additionally, he cited
educational programs and stipulations of probation or parole.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether there was evidence that longer
sentences lead to lower rates of crime.
MR. SKIDMORE indicated that it was possible; however, the notion
behind the proposed legislation was to consider appropriate
criteria for individuals who were distributing "poison" to
Alaskans, which was resulting in their death. He listed the
five components of the Chaney Criteria as follows:
rehabilitation, general deterrents, specific deterrents,
community condemnation, and isolation. He submitted that
isolation and community condemnation should be imposed on more
egregious offenses, such as the one in question.
1:34:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY directed attention to the added provision
under good time exclusions on page 3, lines 10-12, of HB 66. He
shared his understanding that the provision, which removed the
possibility of good time deduction for those charged with a
felony under AS 11.71.010 11.70.040, would remove good time
eligibility for all drug offenses, not just those that resulted
in death.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that the bill would exclude anyone
distributing drugs from receiving a good time deduction, the
rational being that all drug dealers were participating in the
larger industry that was responsible for the substantial
increase in overdose deaths.
1:36:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked why Section 1 of the bill
expressly focused on schedule IVA controlled substances.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the reference to schedule IVA
controlled substances was a policy decision that was made
previously when the manslaughter provision was initially
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER shared his understanding that the bill
would not apply to a person who died from consuming a schedule
IA or IIA drug, such as heroin or PCP. He suggested that HB 66
would only apply to a person who overdosed from consuming a
schedule IVA controlled substance.
MR. SKIDMORE answered no. He directed attention to page 2, line
21, of HB 66, which referred to a person who knowingly
manufactures or delivers a controlled substance in violation of
AS 11.71.010 11.71.030. He clarified that AS 11.71.010
11.71.030 covered misconduct involving a controlled substance
for schedule IA IVA drugs.
1:41:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked for verification that, unlike
bath salt, a loophole could not be created by altering the
synthetic composition of fentanyl to make it legal.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that fentanyl had a definitive chemical
composition that could not be easily changed. He explained that
now, the attorney general (AG) had the ability to add altered
chemical compositions of synthetic controlled substances to the
statutory schedules, pending approval by the legislature, based
on recommendations from the Controlled Substance Advisory
Committee an option that was not available to the state during
the bath salt wars referenced by Representative C. Johnson.
1:43:08 PM
MR. SKIDMORE, in response to a question from Representative
Eastman, disagreed with his analysis of Section 2 of the bill,
explaining that the restriction [of good time eligibility] was
based upon the sentence imposed on the prisoner for a particular
crime. Therefore, if a person were convicted of both misconduct
involving a controlled substance, for which a good time
deduction would not be permitted per HB 66, and a DUI, the
individual could receive a good time deduction for the DUI
sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked where that was specified in
statute. He contended that, per his reading of the language, an
offender would not be eligible for a good time deduction if
he/she had been sentenced.
MR. SKIDMORE deferred the question to the Department of
Corrections (DOC). He shared his understanding that the intent
of restricting good time for specific crimes was not so that a
person would be ineligible from receiving good time for
additional offenses.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a person
committed suicide with a controlled substance. He asked whether
the person who sold or delivered that controlled substance could
be charged with second degree murder if HB 66 were to pass.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that the bill would allow the prosecutor
to hold the distributor of the controlled substance responsible
for causing another person's death, regardless of whether the
death was intentional suicide.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Mr. Skidmore to opine on a scenario
in which a substance was altered between distribution and
ingestion.
MR. SKIDMORE said he would need to follow up after further
analysis of the question.
1:49:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the daily cost of keeping
someone incarcerated.
MR. MATTHEW answered $176 per day.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the costs associated with
extending sentences and asked why the fiscal note was zero.
MR. MATTHEW said the fiscal note was zero because there was a
current capacity of 750 beds [in DOC facilities]. He estimated
that the bill would increase the prison population by a maximum
of 38-39 people per day.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inferred that the cost remained at zero
because there were extra beds available in the DOC facilities.
He asked whether that was correct.
MR. MATTHEW said, generally speaking, yes. He said additional
money would not be requested unless maximum capacity was
exceeded.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY sought to confirm that as long as there were
available beds, housing the incarcerated population was free.
MR. MATTEW answered, "Yes and no." He explained that DOC
charged federal agencies a daily bed rate of $176 for holding
their prisoners.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether state prisoners were held free
of charge.
MR. MATTHEW remarked:
It's a mathematical formula based on how many people
we have per day and how much the costs are for that at
a given period of time. In a sense, yes, it is free
in that context but of course there are costs any time
you have additional people. But we are budgeted for a
certain amount of people and right now, our budget is
under that many people.
1:53:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY surmised that it would cost money to
increase the prison population, which would require a fiscal
note. He asked whether that was wrong.
MR. MATTHEW asked Representative Gray to repeat the question.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY declined. He maintained his belief that a
zero fiscal note inaccurately reflected the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD offered an analogy between the cost of
incarceration and the cost of driving a school bus, indicating
that the cost would be the same whether there were 10 students
or 20 students. She asked whether that was an accurate analogy.
MR. MATTHEW said, "That's a pretty good analogy."
1:55:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH calculated that $176 multiplied by 365
equaled over $64,000. He asked whether that was correct.
MR. MATTHEW confirmed.
1:55:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether DOC's budget was based
on capacity or the number of incarcerated individuals.
MR. MATTHEW indicated that the formula was based on the budgeted
amount in addition to the number of people incarcerated and the
number of days served.
1:56:49 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 66 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 28 - v.A.PDF |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 - Support Letter.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/23/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 - AMIA Support for HB 28 - 2.9.23.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 66 - Alaska Dept. of Health Drug Facts (07-25-22).pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 28 - Sponsor Statement (02-28-23).pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 66 - Controlled Substances Reference Chart 3.1.23.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |