Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/21/2005 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB136 | |
| HB131 | |
| HB132 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 136 | ||
CSHB 132(JUD)-CRIMES AGAINST ELDERLY
9:49:36 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced HB 132 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZ introduced HB 132 and advised it
increases fines for offenses against the elderly. Elderly is
defined as 65 or older. It is meant for people who target
seniors.
9:49:49 AM
MR. RANDY RUARO, attorney, Department of Law (DOL) expressed
support for HB 132.
SENATOR GUESS asked Mr. Ruaro whether the State of Alaska has
similar enhanced penalties for the mentally disabled.
MR. RUARO advised there is an aggravator in statute for people
who are particularly vulnerable. He is not sure how routinely it
is applied.
SENATOR GUESS asked the reason HB 132 is looking at enhanced
penalties versus aggravators.
MR. RUARO admitted he found one case where the court ignored the
aggravator and fashioned the sentence within the normal range.
HB 132 elevates the attention of the court.
SENATOR FRENCH advised the aggravator for the "particularly
vulnerable" singles out age and infirmity and possibly the
mentally challenged. There are prongs in sex assault statute,
which makes it a separate crime to rape a vulnerable victim.
9:52:22 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Ruaro how HB 132 ties into Blakely
versus Washington. He asked whether the elements would have to
be alleged in the complaint and proven to the jury.
MR. RUARO said yes.
SENATOR FRENCH noted the jury would have to find that the
defendant either knew or should have known that the victim was
over 65.
MR. RUARO agreed.
SENATOR FRENCH asked whether he paraphrased the mental element
correctly.
MR. RUARO clarified the element was actually "recklessly
disregard." He did not know whether that was equivalent to
"known or should have known."
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Ruaro to tell the committee how the
court would define "recklessly disregard."
MR. RUARO said the definition of reckless conduct was in the
statutes. The jury would be given an instruction and told they
would have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
acted with that mental state in committing the crime.
9:54:16 AM
MR. BEN LOGAN, staff to Representative Stoltz read the
definition for "recklessly disregard" under AS 11.81.900 (a)
(3).
CHAIR SEEKINS noted there was no one slated to testify against
HB 132. He closed public testimony.
SENATOR GUESS suggested the committee look at the intent and
findings section. She noted Senator Therriault would normally
strike the intent and findings section when not needed for legal
reasons.
CHAIR SEEKINS agreed.
MR. RUARO admitted the intent and findings language in Section 1
was not a critical part of HB 132. However the courts in Alaska
do look at intent and findings. In this case the findings are
short and the judge looking back would see what legislature was
concerned with.
SENATOR FRENCH said the people reviewing HB 132 would understand
the Legislature's intent is to penalize more severely because
elderly victims suffer disproportionately to the normal
individual.
SENATOR GUESS moved Amendment 1.
Strike Section 1.
Hearing no objections, the motion carried.
9:59:53 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS moved SCS CSHB 132(JUD) from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). There
being no objection, the motion carried.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|