Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
03/04/2013 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR2 | |
| SJR6 | |
| HB83 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB81 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 105 - PROPERTY CRIMES
2:02:52 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to theft and property
offenses; and providing for an effective date."
2:03:24 PM
JANE W. PIERSON, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Thompson, explained that the purpose of HB 105 is to raise the
monetary-threshold amount that distinguishes certain felony-
level offenses against property from like misdemeanor-level
offenses. A handout included in members' packets from the
National Conference of State Legislatures' (NCSL's) report
titled, "Principles of Effective State Sentencing and
Corrections Policy" says in part:
Review and revision of mandatory minimum sentences for
some offenders and update of felony theft thresholds
are among the significant ways state legislatures are
modernizing criminal codes to reflect current
circumstances and needs
MS. PIERSON offered her understanding that to date, 22 other
states have adjusted their monetary-threshold amounts [for the
crime of theft], and that Alaska's current monetary-threshold
amounts for the crimes of theft - outlined in AS 11.46 - were
adopted back in 1978 and have not since been adjusted [for
inflation]. Making such adjustments for property crimes is
common throughout the country, and a handout included in
members' packets outlining the monetary-threshold amounts for
all 50 states [and the District of Columbia] illustrates that 29
other [jurisdictions] now have a monetary-threshold amount
higher than Alaska's; that 14 other [jurisdictions] have a
monetary-threshold amount the same as Alaska's current amount;
and that [7 other jurisdictions] have a monetary-threshold
amount lower than Alaska's.
MS. PIERSON explained that currently under AS 11.46.130(a), a
person who steals something with a value of $500 or more could
be charged with the crime of theft in the second degree - a
class C felony - and, if convicted, then suffer the consequences
of being a felon for the rest of his/her life. Raising the
monetary-threshold amount for the crimes of theft is a policy
call for the legislature to make. She then referred to two
charts - titled in part, "Criminal Theft Charges" and "Criminal
Theft Charge Dispositions" - prepared by the Alaska Court System
(ACS) and included in members' packets, and relayed that the ACS
was available to address the statistics included therein, which
include statistics regarding the crime of theft in the second
degree for calendar year 2012.
MS. PEIRSON assured the committee that in raising Alaska's
monetary-threshold amount distinguishing felony-level theft
crimes from misdemeanor-level theft crimes, the sponsor is not
indicating a belief that thieves should go free or not be
charged. Nobody likes a thief, and nobody wants to see a thief
go unpunished. Property crime victimizes everyone; whether a
victim is left feeling violated for having his/her possessions
stolen, or whether consumers are left with the financial burden
of making up for retail theft - everyone experiences the
problems caused by theft. Under HB 105, guilty persons will
still face justice, and the court could still require that
restitution and fines be paid, and could still be aggressive in
sentencing perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. The
sponsor, she relayed, requests that the committee consider
HB 105 and its passage.
2:07:26 PM
MS. PEIRSON went on to explain that Section 1 of HB 105 would
amend AS 11.46.130(a) - again, addressing the class C felony
crime of theft in the second degree - by raising the monetary-
threshold amount from $500 to $1,500; conviction of a class C
felony could result in a maximum prison sentence of up to five
years and a maximum fine of up to $50,000. Section 2 of HB 105
would amend AS 11.46.140(a) - addressing the class A misdemeanor
crime of theft in the third degree - by raising the monetary-
threshold amount from a range of between $50 and $500, to a
range of between $250 and $1,500; conviction of a class A
misdemeanor could result in a maximum prison sentence of up to
one year and a maximum fine of up to $10,000. Section 3 of
HB 105 would amend AS 11.46.150(a) - addressing the class B
misdemeanor crime of theft in the fourth degree - by raising the
monetary-threshold amount from less than $50 to less than $250;
conviction of a class B misdemeanor could result in a maximum
prison sentence of up to 90 days and a maximum fine of up to
$2,000.
MS. PIERSON explained that with regard to the proposed new
monetary-threshold amounts, Section 4 of HB 105 would make
conforming changes to AS 11.46.220(c), addressing the crimes of
concealment of merchandize. Section 5 would make conforming
changes to AS 11.46.260(b), addressing the crimes of removal of
identification marks. Section 6 would make conforming changes
to AS 11.46.270(b), addressing the crimes of unlawful
possession. Section 7 would make conforming changes to
AS 11.46.280(d), addressing the crimes of issuing a bad check.
Section 8 would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.285(b),
addressing the crimes of fraudulent use of an access device.
Section 9 would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.360(a)(2),
addressing [one manifestation of] the class C felony crime of
vehicle theft in the first degree. Sections 10, 11, and 12,
respectively, would make conforming changes to AS 11.46.482(a),
to AS 11.46.484(a), and to AS 11.46.486(a) - addressing,
respectively, the class C felony crime of criminal mischief in
the third degree, the class A misdemeanor crime of criminal
mischief in the fourth degree, and the class B misdemeanor crime
of criminal mischief in the fifth degree.
MS. PIERSON relayed that Section 13 would make conforming
changes to AS 11.46.530(b), addressing the crimes of criminal
simulation. Section 14 would make conforming changes to
AS 11.46.620(d), addressing the crimes of misapplication of
property. Section 15 would make conforming changes to
AS 11.46.730(c), addressing the crimes of defrauding creditors.
Section 16 would add an applicability provision to Alaska's
uncodified law, stipulating that the statutes changed by the
provisions of HB 105 would apply to offenses committed on or
after the effective date of the Act, that being July 1, 2013, as
stipulated via Section 17 of the bill.
2:13:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, pointing out that $500 is a lot of
money, questioned the rationale behind telling criminals, via
the adoption of HB 105, that they may now steal up to [$1,499]
worth of merchandize before being charged with a felony.
MS. PIERSON - acknowledging that theft is a terrible crime that
hurts people in a variety of ways - ventured that with the
passage of so much time since Alaska's current monetary-
threshold amounts were originally established, it is now
appropriate for the legislature to review them, particularly
given that they're in the low range compared to what most other
[jurisdictions in the country] now provide for. Furthermore, a
good percentage of theft crimes are not currently being resolved
at the felony level, and thus the changes proposed by the bill
could result in Alaska's law being more reflective of current
practice. She also acknowledged, though, that a lot of people,
particularly retailers, don't view HB 105 favorably.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that HB 105 would be sending a
message that stealing is okay if the amount is low enough. "A
seasoned thief," she ventured, knows the statutory thresholds,
and so isn't going to steal something with a value that exceeds
a particular threshold.
MS. PIERSON offered her belief that most thieves are not that
intelligent and therefore don't weigh the consequences
associated with the value of what they are stealing.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT disagreed, opining that thieves are indeed
aware of the value of what they are stealing. He then referred
to Section 4 - addressing the crimes of concealment of
merchandise - and questioned why HB 105 is not also proposing a
monetary-threshold for concealing merchandise that is a firearm.
2:19:37 PM
MS. PIERSON explained that there was never a monetary threshold
outlined in statute for merchandise that is a firearm to begin
with.
CHAIR KELLER mentioned that his son has had property stolen from
him, and indicated that his concern with HB 105's proposed
changes revolves around the fact that the bill would indeed be
sending a message to Alaskans, many of whom have also been the
victim of theft and/or know others who have been. Enforcement
and investigatory resources for theft crimes are limited,
leaving only Alaska's stiff penalties for the crime of theft to
act as a deterrent, and yet the bill is proposing to raise
Alaska's monetary-threshold amounts for the crimes of theft.
MS. PIERSON again acknowledged that whether to raise Alaska's
current monetary-threshold amounts is a policy call for the
legislature to make. In response to questions, she relayed that
the bill's proposed changes would apply regardless of whether
that which was stolen was personal property or retail
merchandise, and indicated that the bill is intended to raise
the question of whether Alaska's current monetary-threshold
amounts for the crime of theft are still appropriate and in line
with those provided for elsewhere in the country. The value of
$500 is a lot different today than it was back in 1978, when
Alaska's current monetary-threshold amounts were originally
established, she asserted. In response to comments, she added
that members' packets now contain statistics regarding the
average sentence lengths associated with certain offenses
against property.
2:25:59 PM
THOMAS W. STENSON, Legal Director, American Civil Liberties
Union of Alaska (ACLU of Alaska) Foundation, in response to a
question, indicated that the changes proposed by HB 105 don't
raise any constitutional issues, and mentioned that prosecuting
a felony offense is more expensive than prosecuting a
misdemeanor offense. He too acknowledged that whether to raise
Alaska's current monetary-threshold amounts for theft crimes is
a policy call for [the legislature] to make.
2:27:14 PM
DOUGLAS MOODY, Deputy Public Defender, Criminal Division,
Central Office, Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of
Administration (DOA), indicated a belief that reviewing Alaska's
current monetary-threshold amounts for theft crimes is
appropriate. He ventured that under HB 105's proposed changes,
perhaps more victims of theft crimes would eventually be
compensated for their losses if their perpetrators are not
convicted of a felony. Referring to [the bill's proposed
changes to] the statutes pertaining to the crimes of criminal
mischief in the third through fifth degrees, he also pointed out
that because costs for transporting goods have risen, the
destruction of almost any item in a rural area of the state
could nowadays constitute a felony-level crime under Alaska's
current monetary-threshold amounts. Pointing out that existing
law already addresses repeat offenders, he also ventured that
HB 105's proposed changes would be of benefit to first-time
offenders because they would be able to [steal something worth
up to $1,499 before being charged with a felony, and thereby]
avoid all the problems associated with a felony conviction.
MR. MOODY, in response to a question regarding how often a
felony theft charge gets [pled down] to a misdemeanor theft
charge, offered his understanding that it differs in different
areas of the state depending on the individual prosecutor.
Misdemeanor-level cases tend to get resolved more quickly and
cost less, he also noted.
2:36:38 PM
CHRIS NETTLES (ph), Business Owner; National Federation of
Independent Business (NFIB), after mentioning that he owns a
business that's been stolen from numerous times without anything
ever being resolved, testified in opposition to HB 105's
proposed increases to Alaska's monetary-threshold amounts,
offering his belief that the bill would increase theft crime in
his area.
2:38:43 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), first
relayed that the ACS takes no position on HB 105. Referring to
the aforementioned charts provided by the ACS, she mentioned
that although they illustrate facts related to theft charges
filed and the disposition of theft cases, the charts do not
outline how many charges were filed for cases in which the
property stolen was valued at between $500 and $1,500; such
cases would be the only type impacted by HB 105's proposed
changes. According to the chart titled in part, "Criminal Theft
Charges", during calendar year 2012, about half of the 3611
total theft crimes charged were felony-level thefts, and the
crime of theft in the second degree and the crime of theft in
the third degree were charged about equally often. According to
the chart titled in part, "Criminal Theft Charge Dispositions",
during calendar year 2012, there were [513] felony convictions,
and [1,208] misdemeanor convictions.
MS. MEADE indicated that one could extrapolate from the
statistics in those two charts that approximately one-third of
the felony charges resulted in a conviction, and three-fourths
of the misdemeanor charges resulted in a conviction. She noted
that some felony charges get pled down to misdemeanor charges;
according to the charts, for example, the misdemeanor crime of
theft in the third degree was charged only 1146 times in 2012,
but there were 1447 dispositions involving that crime, and 952
[cases involving the felony crime] of theft in the second degree
were dismissed by the prosecution for a variety of reasons. In
conclusion, she also noted that felony cases are addressed by
the Alaska Superior Court, whereas misdemeanor cases are
addressed by Alaska's district courts, which generally dispose
of cases more quickly and less expensively than the Alaska
Superior Court.
MS. MEADE, in response to questions and comments, indicated that
the initial criminal charges filed determine which court shall
address a particular case; that under Rule 11 of the Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure, prosecutors have discretion to
enter into plea agreements, which must be reasonable and provide
for supervisory oversight; and that there can be good reasons
for entering into a particular plea agreement. In conclusion,
she too noted that conviction of a [class A misdemeanor] could
result in a maximum prison sentence of up to one year and a
maximum fine of up to $10,000.
CHAIR KELLER relayed that HB 105 would be held over.