Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/1999 01:25 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 180 - DRUGS WHERE MINORS ARE PRESENT
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the first item of business is HB 180,
"An Act relating to the possession, manufacture, use, display, or
delivery of controlled substances while children are present." He
noted that it had been heard by the committee previously.
Number 0057
PETER TORKELSON, Researcher for Representative John Cowdery, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor. He
explained that a new work draft, Version H [1-LS0188\H, Luckhaupt,
4/22/99], corrects drafting errors brought up in the previous
committee hearing. This bill represents what the sponsor would
like to say on the issue, Mr. Torkelson told members, but he is
also open to the will of the committee regarding penalty provisions
or other matters that may need to be addressed.
Number 0112
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired about the changes from Version G to
Version H.
MR. TORKELSON pointed out that probably the most substantive change
is on page 2, line 18, which in Version H reads, "(c) Endangering
the welfare of a child in the first degree under (a)(1), (2) or
(4)". Subparagraph (4) references the new section in the lines
just above that, defining it as a C felony. The drafting error
hadn't specified to which penalty it applied. Version H also makes
the phrase "displayed, or delivered" consistent throughout, so that
it says "used, manufactured, displayed, or delivered".
Number 0211
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked about the decision to make it a Class C
felony.
MR. TORKELSON explained that the sponsor's original intent was that
this language be part of AS 11.51.100; the Class C felony is the
basic penalty that covers that section. However, as the committee
has noted, there are other penalties for varying degrees of
offenses, taking into account whether or not a child was harmed,
for example. They are amiable to amending that section, if it is
the committee's will, he added.
Number 0263
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that he was waiting for an
amendment from Jerry Luckhaupt that would change that conduct to a
Class A misdemeanor. He noted that it gets complicated because of
the various levels for varying physical harm. He and the judiciary
had wanted to amend it to put Class A misdemeanor on page 2, line
19; however, that affects subparagraphs (1) and (2).
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt as a conceptual
amendment that the conduct in the new subparagraph (4) be penalized
at a Class A misdemeanor level. He expressed concerned about
amending it specifically at this point because of possible
unintended consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI objected for purposes of discussion.
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested on page 2, line 18, making that a new
subsection (d), to say, "Endangering the welfare of a child in the
first degree under (a)(4) of this section is a class A
misdemeanor." The remaining subparagraphs would be renumbered to
correspond. He asked whether that would get to the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks so.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked for confirmation that subsection (c)
would be left as it is: (a)(1) and (2).
CHAIRMAN KOTT affirmed that.
Number 0429
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested they wouldn't want to call it
"first degree," to avoid confusion.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that it is still first degree,
because it is all under AS 11.51.100.
CHAIRMAN KOTT concurred. He asked Representative Croft to explain
the proposed amendment.
Number 0463
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT told members that Version H, without the
amendment, would place this on the same level of conduct as
"intentionally deserts the child in a place under circumstances
creating a substantial risk of physical injury to the child and the
child suffers serious physical injury" or "leaves the child with
another person who is not a parent, guardian, or lawful custodian
of the child, knowing that the person is a sex offender or has been
convicted of sex offenses, and the child suffers sexual contact or
sexual penetration."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that those are very serious
"endangering the welfare of a child" issues. More importantly, in
(a)(3), a showing is required of actual physical injury, whereas
(a)(1) and (2) regard leaving a child in conditions that everyone
can agree create a substantial risk of physical injury. Leaving a
child, or having a child remain, in the physical presence of
unlawful use is inappropriate behavior; it should be criminalized,
he concluded, but not at the level of leaving the child with a
known sex offender.
Number 0601
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to page 3, suggesting that reckless
disregard is a little different from having somebody just be in the
room.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT reported that on page 3, it is a Class A
misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed that if that is a Class A misdemeanor,
the other certainly should be. He asked whether there is a
significant difference between negligently allowing a child to be
there, as on page 2, and reckless disregard, as on page 3.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that is a good question. Section .100,
on pages 1 and 2, is "being a parent, guardian or other person
lawfully charged with the care of". The ones on page 2, continuing
to page 3, are "a person commits the crime if".
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were further questions, and whether
the objection was maintained.
Number 0700
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI withdrew her objection.
Number 0741
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Version H [1-LS0188\H,
Luckhaupt, 4/22/99] as a work draft.
CHAIRMAN KOTT, hearing no objection, noted that Version H was
adopted. He then stated that there being no objection, the motion
to adopt the conceptual amendment, as set forth by Representative
Croft, was adopted.
Number 0775
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move Version H, as amended,
from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached
zero fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSHB 180(JUD) was
so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|