Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/01/2024 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Public Defender Agency | |
| HB238 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 238 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 238-CRIMINAL MISCHIEF 3RD DEGREE
1:48:53 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 238, "An Act relating to criminal mischief in the
third degree; and providing for an effective date."
1:49:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 238,
labeled 33-LS1101\A.3, C. Radford, 2/29/24, which read:
Page 2, lines 6 - 7:
Delete "structure, or personal property"
Insert "a structure, or property
(i) belonging to a religious institution;
(ii) used to educate the public about a
religion; or
(iii)"
Page 2, lines 15 - 16:
Delete "a building, structure, or personal
property"
Insert "the building, structure, or property
belonging to a religious institution, used to educate
the public about a religion, or"
Page 2, line 18:
Delete "personal"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:49:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 238, explained that Amendment 1 would include the
grounds [of a property] and religious institutions used to
educate the public in the bill.
1:52:39 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:52 p.m. to 1:54 p.m.
1:54:18 PM
ALEXANDER SCHROEDER, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson,
prime sponsor of HB 238, further explained the deletion of the
word "personal" in Amendment 1.
1:55:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked whether a Facebook page would be
considered property.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered, "Maybe."
1:56:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how to delineate a religious
institution on shared property, such as those in strip malls,
for example.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON conveyed that the property must belong
to the religious institution. He provided an example.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked about property leased by the religious
institution and whether that property would be viewed as
belonging to the institution.
1:58:16 PM
MR. SHROEDER said technically, yes, depending on the definition
of "belonging."
CHAIR VANCE asked about property belonging to a religious
institution that may not be used for a religious purpose [and
whether that would be covered by Amendment 1].
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said the property would have to be used
for worship or any other religious purpose.
2:00:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether it would matter whether
the person engaging in the conduct knew that the property
belonged to a religious institution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON described the crime as a "knowing
crime" and discussed the actus reus. He said there could be a
degree of negligence that could speak to a lower sentence,
indicating that an accidental desecration of a religious item or
institution could fall under the bill's rubric.
2:02:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER questioned what would happen if it was
unclear that the property is a religious institution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON suspected that a "reasonable person
test" would be applied to that scenario. He provided an
example.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER clarified the question, sharing the
example of a church that owns a car lot. He asked whether the
desiccation of the car lot would be covered by the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON suspected that the desiccation of a car
lot that belongs to a religious institution could not have been
done knowingly.
2:04:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH considered a scenario in which a swastika is
spray painted on a synagogue, which would show more of an
intentional standard, he presumed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said the scenario in question sounds
both knowing and intentional.
2:05:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY posed the example of an anti-Islamic sign
being hung from a parking lot across from a mosque. He further
explained that although the sign is not on the mosque's
property, the intention is for it to be seen. He asked shared
his understanding that this scenario would not qualify; however,
he believed that it should.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON agreed that it would not be a covered
item. He pointed out that the scenario broached First Amendment
rights and cited R.A.V. vs. City of St. Paul wherein the court
found no liability. He added that the goal of the bill was not
to prescribe that behavior as illegal.
2:07:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether sub-subparagraphs (i) and
(ii) were separated by an "and" or "or."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said both sub-subparagraph (i) and sub-
subparagraph (ii) were "or."
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER sought to confirm that a building used
to educate the public on religion would "stand alone," meaning
that it would not need to be owned by a religious institution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON confirmed that it would stand alone.
2:08:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER posed a hypothetical scenario in which
a church rents out a gymnasium in a public school. He sought to
confirm that if that space were desecrated, the conduct would be
subject to the language [in Amendment 1.]
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON suggested that a smart prosecutor would
charge the offender under (c)(3). In response to a follow up
question, he stated that the defacement of a school that is also
used for religious worship would fall under criminal mischief in
the fourth degree.
2:11:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER questioned whether the verbal desecration
of a religious broadcast would be covered by the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON shared his understanding that the event
in question would not be covered by the bill, adding that the
scenario encroached on First Amendment and freedom of speech
rights.
2:12:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether the law would apply to
universities offering religious studies.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON shared his belief that if the theology
department of a university of were desecrated, it would meet the
elements of the crime.
2:14:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON opined that if a person were tagging
various properties that happen to include a religious
institution, it should not be considered desecration because
religion is not the specific target. He stated his belief that
there should be a distinction made between tagging and the
intent to maliciously desecrate religious property.
2:17:30 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:18:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned the use of the word "public"
and asked whether it would be too restrictive.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON explained that if a member desecrated
religious property during a private event, it would be covered
under [sub-subparagraph] (i) or (iii).
2:20:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY agreed that the words "the public" were
problematic. He questioned whether the words could be removed.
2:20:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to withdraw Amendment 1. There
being no objection, Amendment 1 was withdrawn.
2:22:01 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 238 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Terrence P Haas Resume 1_26_24.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB 238 - Amendment #1 (A.3).pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 238 |