02/18/2009 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB13 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 18, 2009
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 13
"An Act relating to property crimes."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 95
"An Act relating to stays of execution on and the postjudgment
interest rate on judgments greater than $100,000 in favor of the
state or a political subdivision of the state."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 13
SHORT TITLE: PROPERTY CRIMES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) JUD, FIN
02/18/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff
Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 13 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Coghill.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 13.
QUINLAN G. STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 13.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 13.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:35:47 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Gatto,
Lynn, Gruenberg, Dahlstrom, and Coghill were present at the call
to order. Representative Holmes arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 13 - PROPERTY CRIMES
1:37:33 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 13, "An Act relating to property crimes."
1:37:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the sponsor of HB 13,
explained that it proposes to raise the threshold amounts for
[felony and misdemeanor property crimes].
1:38:38 PM
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff, Representative John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Coghill, sponsor, added
that the purpose of HB 13 is to raise the threshold amounts that
distinguish felony property crimes from misdemeanor property
crimes, and further distinguish class A misdemeanor property
crimes from class B misdemeanor property crimes. Alaska's
criminal statutes differentiate between levels of property
crimes based upon the value of the property that is either
taken, altered, damaged, or destroyed, and the current statutory
threshold amounts were set in 1978. However, because crimes
against property are interrelated and the statutes were designed
by the legislature to equally punish persons who cause equal
monetary damage to their victims, HB 13 proposes to change the
threshold amounts for property crimes so that they will be more
in line with today's monetary value of various items.
MS. LIDSTER relayed that in researching other states, it was
found that Arizona, Colorado, and Texas already have some
threshold amounts equal to some of those proposed by HB 13.
Currently, the threshold for a felony property crime is $500 and
warrants a class C felony charge. In response to a question,
she relayed that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) has
indicated that it has no position on the bill, acknowledges that
the current threshold amounts are due to be increased, but does
have some concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that when he'd cosponsored
similar legislation in the past, he'd received input from the
chiefs of police of local law enforcement agencies indicating
they were opposed to that legislation, and this caused him
concern. He suggested that that issue be researched further.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, characterizing the changes proposed by
HB 13 as long overdue, asked how the new threshold amounts were
arrived at.
MS. LIDSTER offered her recollection that via discussions about
inflation, the proposed new amounts were agreed upon, though no
specific formula was used.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that although the choice of HB 13's
proposed amounts was somewhat arbitrary, the existing statutory
amount of $25,000 for certain of the property crimes listed in
the bill was the result of recently passed legislation. He
explained that originally he'd considered increasing all
thresholds of $1,500 to $2,500, and increasing all thresholds of
$250 to $500; however, when researching what a $500 property
crime could consist of, for example, it became apparent that
perhaps there was room for debate with regard to what the new
thresholds should be, and so he ultimately chose lower amounts
for some of the property crimes listed in the bill. For
example, because these days a person could spend $500 on a
bicycle, if it's stolen, then currently the thief would be
subject to a felony charge. He said that although he may not
yet have arrived at the right threshold amount, the current
amounts, which in some cases are as low as $50, are no longer
acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that oftentimes
in Alaska misdemeanor crimes are not pursued by law enforcement,
and are sometimes just used to place additional charges on an
offender. He went on to say that although he'd been considering
introducing this type of legislation for a number of years,
other proposed changes to the criminal statutes took precedence.
The lack of enforcement of misdemeanor crimes is a problem
that's being highlighted by the introduction of HB 13, and more
emphasis seems to be being placed on felony crimes and their
penalties, but with the current low threshold amounts for felony
property crimes, it's more likely that a person will be charged
with a felony.
CHAIR RAMRAS - remarking on the burden a felony charge can place
on a person, particularly a young person - asked what the
proposed changes will mean for the DOL and the Alaska Court
System (ACS) from a practical standpoint.
1:52:09 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL) - after
noting that the DOL has worked with the sponsor on HB 13 - said
that the DOL isn't taking a position on the bill, but
acknowledged that it's been over 30 years since the current
threshold amounts were set. Raising the threshold amounts for
property crimes can be a difficult policy question to consider,
particularly given that in Alaska, most domestic violence
assault crimes, for example, are resolved as class A
misdemeanors, whereas stealing a bicycle that cost $500 is
currently a felony. She offered her understanding that even
since the setting of the current thresholds for property crimes,
the DOL's district attorneys exercise good, sound judgment and
often do resolve cases at lower levels - even when the value of
the item warrants a higher level charge - than those amounts"
when it seems appropriate to do so. And although the proposed
thresholds might seem arbitrary, thresholds must still be set.
In response to a question, she surmised that perhaps the
aforementioned concern of local law enforcement agencies is that
there are insufficient resources for the prosecution of all
cases, and so the least serous cases aren't getting addressed,
and that raising the threshold amounts will create a bigger pool
of class B misdemeanor cases, which, again, may not get
addressed if there are insufficient resources.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to a question and comments,
surmised that the DPS isn't going to take a position on HB 13,
and that with the current $500 threshold for a felony, although
it might be easier to charge someone with a felony, it might
also be harder to prosecute the person for a felony because
he/she might plead the charge down to a misdemeanor. He said he
is questioning why law enforcement isn't charging people for
misdemeanor crimes regardless of which crimes prosecutors
ultimately end up pursuing. Are law enforcement officers
refusing to uphold the law simply because they know that the
resources for prosecution are insufficient?
1:58:09 PM
MS. CARPENETI assured the committee that the DOL makes a valiant
effort to prosecute all cases that have been referred by law
enforcement - the DOL doesn't turn down any cases.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that point, but again
remarked that it seems to be a decision being made by law
enforcement officers to not charge people with misdemeanors.
Under the current thresholds for property crimes, a person
charged with a felony property crime for stealing a $500
bicycle, for example, is facing the same penalties as someone
charged with kidnapping, and this needs to change, he opined,
because "they're not the same value anymore."
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
CHAIR RAMRAS, indicating that he'd just spoken with a
representative from the DPS, confirmed that the DPS is neutral
on HB 13.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again relayed that it was the chiefs of
police of local law enforcement agencies that had expressed
concern with the aforementioned similar legislation that he'd
cosponsored.
1:59:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether the DOL keeps records
regarding the different levels of property crimes, such as how
many are felonies, how many are misdemeanors, how many are being
pled [down], and how the property crime threshold amounts relate
to what's actually being charged.
MS. CARPENETI said that the DOL does keep records of property
crimes, though she is not sure how detailed they are. She
offered to research that issue further and provide the resulting
information to the committee. In response to questions, she
explained that the court can order that restitution also be paid
by the offender as part of the sentence, and that she doesn't
think that district attorneys factor in the possible amount of
any such restitution when deciding what level of crime to charge
the person with. She offered to research that issue further as
well.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL shared that he'd once had his bicycle
stolen, but noted that these days there is just such a
difference in the value of things, and so he just needed to
start somewhere with regard to raising the threshold amounts,
particularly given that felony charges and associated penalties
are so serious these days.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES agreed.
CHAIR RAMRAS, to illustrate that there is often a relationship
between misdemeanor crimes and felony crimes, shared that he'd
once had his bicycle stolen by someone who then went on to
commit an execution-style murder.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM noted that a bicycle of lesser value
might mean more to its owner than a bicycle of greater value
might meant to its owner, depending on the owners' differing
financial situations. However, the fact that the crime of
domestic violence assault is still often only charged as a
misdemeanor makes a statement regarding how life, compared with
property, is valued in today's society.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that the concept of raising the
threshold amounts of property crimes was brought to his
attention by a judge who'd pointed out the current disparity,
and that that judge had suggested the aforementioned higher
amounts he'd originally been thinking of including in the bill.
It was out of concern that the value of certain kinds of
property not be misjudged that he lowered the amounts to those
currently proposed in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred that the value of an item to
it's owner is dependant on his/her financial situation, and
expressed concern regarding the impact that HB 13 might have on
his constituents since most of them are not well off
financially; passage of HB 13 might result in the property
crimes perpetrated against his constituents being put at the
bottom of the list of the crimes to be prosecuted. In response
to a question, he clarified that although he'd once cosponsored
similar legislation, in addition to hearing opposition to it
from local law enforcement agencies, he now also has a concern
that the proposed changes could have an adverse impact on his
constituency. He asked whether there is any information about
where lower-level property crimes tend to occur.
2:11:48 PM
QUINLAN G. STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), said he is
unable to venture an answer on that issue because of a lack of
information. In response to another question, he surmised that
if the changes proposed by HB 13 were to become law, a certain
percentage of cases that were formerly prosecuted as felonies
would instead be processed as misdemeanors, though he is unable
to say exactly how many cases that would be because statistical
information regarding the value of the property alleged to have
been stolen is not tracked. Nonetheless, dealing with felonies
is more time consuming than dealing with misdemeanors, and even
when a felony ultimately gets plead down to a misdemeanor, it is
still treated as a felony throughout the process.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether passage of HB 13 would result in an
increased workload for the PDA.
MR. STEINER offered his understanding that in general it would
decrease the PDA's workload. However, whether it really does
decrease will be dependant upon the approach taken by the
district attorney.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked what the cost difference is for defending a
felony crime compared to defending a misdemeanor crime.
MR. STEINER said that misdemeanor crimes generally require fewer
resources because the PDA assigns more misdemeanor cases to a
[misdemeanor] attorney than it would assign felony cases to a
"felony attorney." For example, under limits set by the
American Bar Association (ABA), 400 cases can be handled by a
misdemeanor attorney whereas only 150 cases can be handled by a
felony attorney. Furthermore, because the consequences for
felony crimes are high, that also tends to drive up costs such
as those associated with pretrial litigation.
MR. STEINER, in response to a request, explained that aside from
the amount of jail time assigned and the penalties handed down,
one of the principal distinctions between a misdemeanor crime
and a felony crime is that felons are placed on supervised
probation whereas misdemeanants are placed on unsupervised
probation, and being placed on supervised probation can result
in a significant increase in the costs associated with the case.
2:18:21 PM
MS. CARPENETI added that there can be quite a number of
collateral consequences associated with a felony conviction.
For example, felons can't vote for a period of time, any
subsequent felony conviction could result in a presumptive
sentencing term being applied, and a lot of prospective
employers often ask whether a candidate for employment has ever
been convicted of a felony crime. Therefore, in addition to the
sentencing, probation, and parole consequences, being convicted
of a felony can make quite a bit of difference in a person's
life in a number of important ways.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred, and noted that one of his
foster children was charged with a felony and was then precluded
from applying to be a law enforcement officer even though he was
never convicted and had since turned his life around. There is
a significant benefit to holding people accountable, he opined,
but there is a high cost to individuals who become felons.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that there is
no statutory provision allowing for the expungement of a
person's record.
MS. CARPENETI clarified that there is a statutory procedure for
sealing a record - the record would be set aside and would no
longer be available on the Alaska Public Safety Information
Network (APSIN) - and a court rule procedure for sealing a
"court view record." Therefore, in the situation involving
Representative Coghill's foster child, she added, since the
person was only charged and not convicted, he could have pursued
that procedure so that his record wouldn't have been available
on the APSIN.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that point, but remarked
that just being charged with a felony, let alone convicted, can
have a significant impact on a person.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, explained that the
statute pertaining to sealing a record specifies for what
purposes a record is and is not sealed. She also explained that
a record is never really expunged - "you don't make a historical
fact disappear"; instead, "you try and deal fairly with what the
result of that [was] by sealing the record."
2:26:23 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Administrative Staff,
Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System
(ACS), after relaying that the ACS doesn't take a position on
HB 13, in response to a question, explained that superior court
cases take more resources, and that the ACS assigns fewer cases
to superior court judges - it's the district court that resolves
cases very quickly, and so it has a much higher caseload. Costs
per case are less for district court cases then they are for
superior court cases. Research indicates that in 2008 there
were 973 class C felony property crime cases that would have
been affected by HB 13; however, what is not known is how many
of those cases would have been impacted by the [proposed] $1,500
threshold amount, particularly given that a class C felony
property crime covers a range of value - from $500 to $25,000 -
and so the property in question could have been a car or it
could have been a bicycle.
MR. WOOLIVER relayed that in an effort to find out what types of
cases were considered and how they were resolved, he sent out a
survey to all superior and district court judges, and the
results from that survey indicate that the vast majority of
those cases were resolved in district court as misdemeanors;
they were either originally charged as misdemeanors, even though
the value of the property was over the felony threshold, or were
charged as felonies but were then plead down to misdemeanors.
For the latter such cases, although never requiring the
resources of a superior court judge, they do still require
district attorney and public defender resources because once a
felony charge is filed, felony attorneys are assigned. From the
perspective of the ACS, however, what triggers the increased
workload is whether a case is "touched" by a superior court
judge, and, again, most of those cases were not.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether passage of HB 13 would put more
pressure on the district court.
MR. WOOLIVER said that would depend on the particular district
court. For example, in Fairbanks, the district court is very,
very busy, whereas in Anchorage, it's the superior that's
overwhelmed. System-wide, therefore, it [would be] kind of a
wash, but in individual communities it [could] make a
difference.
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested that the Department of Corrections (DOC)
be asked what impact the bill will have on it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that the bill has engendered
an indeterminate fiscal note from the DOC.
2:31:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that $50 [one of the lower
current threshold amounts] in 1978 isn't worth the same as $50
in 2008, so in order for the penalty to now fit the crime, the
threshold amounts need to be adjusted, though what the new
amounts should ultimately be is still up for discussion. He
predicted that probation officers will also be impacted by
passage of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her belief that the current
threshold amounts need to be changed, and relayed that she will
be doing some research regarding what the new amounts might best
be set at.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that perhaps there might be
some victim advocacy groups willing to provide comments on the
bill as well.
2:34:04 PM
MR. WOOLIVER, in conclusion, offered his belief that HB 13 will
help more accurately reflect where the ACS's workload really is,
particularly given that currently many cases filed as felonies
actually end up being resolved as misdemeanors - thus making it
appear that there are many more felony cases then there really
are.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 13 would be held over for the
purpose of obtaining testimony from local law enforcement
agencies, the DOC, and victim advocacy groups.
2:35:32 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB13 Bill version A.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| Amendment #1 W.1.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB13 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB13 Sectional .pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB13 Fiscal CTS.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB13 Fiscal LAW.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB13 Fiscal Note DOC.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| Hb95 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| HB95 Bill version W.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| Hb95 Sectional ver. W.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| HB95 Fiscal LAW.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| HB95 Allapattah v. Exxon.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |