Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/01/2005 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 19 | ||
| = | HB 15 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 91 am
"An Act relating to indecent exposure."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff to Representative John Coghill, stated that
the bill is best presented by the language in the Sponsor Statement
that reads as follows.
Several young girls in Delta Junction were subjected to a man
exposing himself to them in the parking lot of a local store
last summer. He was apprehended and arrested. In a background
check it was reported that he had a prior conviction of a
similar incident in Arizona. When arrested in the Arizona
case, police reported that he matched the description of a man
reported for the same activity several times but they could
never catch him.
In the Delta Junction incident, the local magistrate charged
him with three felonies but because of the circumstances, he
could not be convicted of a felony. He plea-bargained down to
one misdemeanor.
Children are more vulnerable and innocent than adults and
children fall prey to sex offender more easily than adults.
This legislation makes repeat convictions of indecent exposure
within the observation of a person under the age of sixteen a
felony.
1:58:02 PM
Senator Dyson voiced being "intrigued about the circumstances that
kept" the offender from being charged. To that point, he asked how
this bill would address those circumstances.
Ms. Lidster responded that, "the difference between a felony and a
misdemeanor in an act of this nature is whether or not the offender
touches himself". This is the reason that the Delta Junction
offender "could only be charged with a misdemeanor ….it appears
that it's possible that this person had been suspect of doing these
kinds of things previously but seemed to understand" the line "that
should not be crossed". This bill would correct this situation by
specifying that if an individual had previously been convicted of
indecent exposure before a minor, regardless of whether the person
touched themself or not, they could be charged with a felony.
Co-Chair Green asked whether this legislation had been referred to
the Senate Judicial Committee.
Ms. Lidster affirmed that the bill had reported from the Senate
Judiciary Committee without any changes.
Co-Chair Green stressed the importance of the fact that the
Judiciary Committee had heard this legislation, as that committee
has, as a matter of course, thoroughly discussed the misdemeanor
verses felony issue.
Ms. Lidster affirmed. She noted that the bill's sponsor is
conscious of "not ratcheting up penalties". The bill does specify
that there must be an "intent to frighten or shock a person",
specifically minors in this case. There must also be total
disregard "for the person that this is happening in front of as
opposed to sometimes stopping alongside the road" and inadvertently
being observed.
AT EASE: 2:01:16 PM /2:01:17 PM
Ms. Lidster specified that, "an offender commits the crime of
indecent exposure in the second degree if the offender knowingly
exposes the offender's genitals in the presence of another person
with reckless disregard for the offensive, insulting, or
frightening affect the act may have."
Co-Chair Green asked whether such language was included in AS
11.41.460.
Ms. Lidster affirmed its inclusion.
In response to a question from Senator Olson, Ms. Lidster
understood that parents would be protected from this penalty were
their actions not intended "to frighten and have total disregard
for the affect of the act on the children".
Senator Olson inquired to a situation in which a minor might be
exposed to a child being borne.
Ms. Lidster voiced that the purpose of the bill would be to address
intentional episodes of indecent exposure.
2:03:44 PM
Co-Chair Green asked whether the concerns begin raised by Senator
Olson might be addressed by further clarification of the
"knowingly" or "intentional" act language or "the shock" element in
the bill. Care should be taken not "to exonerate all family
members" in this regard.
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, informed the
Committee that he had "never heard of indecent exposure prosecution
being leveled against somebody in a family situation". However, he
agreed that a family member should not "be exempt from the law".
Continuing, he noted that there is a relationship between indecent
exposure and child abuse as well as "indecent exposure and grooming
activities". "Sadly, a lot of that goes on in the family."
Mr. Guaneli voiced the hope that were "there two parents present,
one would be watching out for the children".
Mr. Guaneli determined that it would be difficult to imagine that
such situations would "come to the attention of authorities unless
they are particularly egregious circumstances that we would not
want to exempt from the coverage of the law". He was unsure as to
"how to draft in some sort of an exemption that wouldn't sweep too
broadly and protect activity that we don't want to protect".
2:05:59 PM
Senator Dyson noted that the term "masturbate" is included in
Section 1(a)(1), page one, line eight of HB 91(am), Version 24-
LS0098\A.A. The inclusion of the word "and" in Section 1(a), page
one, line six, indicates that the act of masturbation must
accompany the offense in order for it to deemed as first-degree
indecent exposure. This would "limit the application". Family
members should be prosecuted were that activity to occur.
Ms. Lidster responded that the intent of bill was to prevent
someone who continues to knowingly expose himself or herself to a
minor, and who knows that they could only be charged with a
misdemeanor were they to not touch themselves, from simply being
charged with a misdemeanor. Evidence has concluded that indecent
exposure offenders elevate their offenses overtime.
Co-Chair Green pointed out that the word "or" in Section 1(a)(1),
page one, line nine would negate Senator Dyson's concern that the
felony charge could not be levied unless masturbation accompanied
the indecent exposure act.
Co-Chair Green ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
2:08:59 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|