Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/1999 01:55 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 67
"An Act relating to release of certain persons alleged
to have committed certain sexual offenses."
JANET SEITZ, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG spoke in support
of the legislation. She read from the sponsor statement. She
noted that the legislation was proposed to strengthen
protection for sexually abused victims.
This bill adds a new section (release in sexual abuse
and sexual assault cases) that mandates the court to
consider safety of the alleged victim in the following
cases: sexual assault [first degree to third degree],
Sexual abuse of a minor [first degree to third degree],
incest, unlawful exploitation of a minor, and indecent
exposure in the first degree.
The bill permits the judge to impose additional
conditions on a person charged or convicted of these
crimes concerning no contact with alleged victim,
residing in a place where there is no likelihood of
coming in contact with the victim, and taking
medication as prescribe.
Currently a victim is usually notified of a bail
hearing but inquiry by the judicial officer as to if
such notification has been made is not statutorily
required. This was where the system broke down in my
constituent's case. The bill indicates that before a
person who is charged or convicted of one of these
crimes is released that the judicial officer is
required to ask about the notice of the victim or
victim's representative. The judicial officer is also
to inquire if the victim or victim's representative is
in court and wishes to comment.
This legislation stems from a situation faced by one of
my constituents this past year. This person's young
child was sexually abused. The parent was not notified
of the bail hearing and the predator, who changed his
plea at the last minute, was released back into the
community [and is still out in the community awaiting
sentencing which has now been scheduled for May] with
minimal supervision despite the District Attorney's
request for 24-hour supervision. As might be expected,
the victim's parent was outraged that the criminal who
abused a young child was again in the community without
any supervision. I agreed with the parent's concerns
and introduced this legislation.
Ms. Seitz explained that the perpetrator was in violation of
the three-mile limit within the victim's home. The
legislation gives the judicial system a way to assure that
the victim's concerns are addressed.
Ms. Seitz explained that the original legislation mandated
24-hour close supervision and additional notice to the
victim. Discussions with the Department of Law and the
Alaska Court System indicated that there could be
constitutional concerns with the mandates. The Department of
Law suggested language in section 1. This method is used by
the Alaska Court System in domestic violence cases. The
legislation was referred to the House Judiciary and Finance
Committees.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the judge
currently has this authority. The legislation directs the
Court to act.
Representative J. Davies questioned the statutory references
Ms. Seitz noted statutes reference by the legislation:
11.41.410 Sexual Assault in the First Degree
11.41.420 Sexual Assault in the Second Degree
11.41.425 Sexual Assault in the Third Degree
11.41.434 Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the First Degree
11.41.435 Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the Second Degree
11.41.438 Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the Third Degree
11.41.450 Incest
11.41.455 Unlawful Exploitation of a Minor
11.41.458 Indecent Exposure in the First Degree
Vice-Chair Bunde expressed concern with page 2, lines 10 -
12. Ms. Seitz stated that the intent is that some effort be
made to notify the victim. She observed that reasonable
effort language came from the Department of Law. Ms.
Carpeneti explained that "reasonable effort" was added
because defendants are entitled to a bail hearing within a
certain period of time. She observed that problems occur
when the witness is unavailable. Some hearings cannot be
delayed. She noted that bail hearings can occur within a
couple of hours.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if "reasonable effort" is legally
defensible. Ms. Carpeneti stated that it would be legally
defensible. She observed that trials allow more time to
subpoena witnesses. The problem occurs more often in terms
of hearings that are set at the last minute such as a bail
hearing. Defendants have a right to appear before a judge
within 24 hours to argue the terms of their bail.
Representative J. Davies asked if victims receive notice
that there is a possibility of a bail hearing within 24
hours. Ms. Carpenenti did not know the answer to the
question.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked for a guess on how many cases would
be involved. Ms. Carpeneti stated that the Department of Law
did not submit a fiscal note. She observed that the
Department of Corrections could encounter costs associated
with transportation of prisoners. Other costs could involve
delayed hearings.
Representative G. Davis questioned if victim's rights groups
have been active in assisting in notification. Ms. Carpeneti
did not know if victim's rights groups would have time to
receive notice. Representative G. Davis thought that some
groups have members in the court on an on-going basis.
Ms. Seitz noted that the House Judiciary Committee adopted
the fiscal note that was submitted to the original version
of the legislation.
Vice-Chair Bunde MOVED to report CSHB 67 (JUD) out of
Committee with the accompanying updated fiscal notes. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 67 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with and a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Administration and a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Corrections, published date 4/16/99.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|