Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/15/2002 02:36 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 375-REVISOR'S BILL
MS. PAM FINLEY, revisor of statutes, informed members that this
bill was drafted pursuant to statute and was introduced by the
Legislative Council. The purpose of the legislation is to clean
up errors in the statutes or provisions that have become
obsolete. She said when drafting this bill, she tries to avoid
any policy choices in the bill because the revisor's bill does
not usually get the kind of attention that most bills do.
MS. FINLEY said HB 375 contains two sections of interest, the
first being Section 1. Currently, the statutes say that when a
bill has a specific effective date, the bill goes into effect
that day. Unfortunately, sometimes the Governor does not sign the
legislation until after the effective date. The practice in the
revisor's office has been to treat the date signed as an
immediate effective date because that is the date closest to the
legislature's intent. Last year, legislation that lowered the
blood alcohol content to .08 passed with a July 1 effective date.
The Governor did not sign the bill until July 3, so it went into
effect July 4. In the meantime, someone was arrested on July 1
and is claiming the sections that had a July 1 effective date
should have a "90 days out" effective date. She noted the judge
will decide on that matter and HB 375 is not intended to affect
the lawsuit, but the matter did bring to her attention the fact
that the statutes have not been reflecting actual practice.
Therefore, Section 1 reflects actual practice since at least
1984.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the legal argument is that because
the law could not take effect on the stated date, the standard 90
day effective date provision would apply.
MS. FINLEY said she assumes that is the legal argument. She then
explained the second bill section that is of interest is Section
2. She said it appears to change the statute of limitations but
does not. She explained that a floor amendment was passed last
year. Prior to that amendment, the civil statute of limitations
for sexual assault and sexual abuse was three years. The regular
statute of limitations for torts was two years. Because of the
rule about minors, if the sexual abuse occurred when the person
was a minor, the three-year limit did not start running until the
victim turned 18. Furthermore, if a person was sexually assaulted
a certain number of times before the age of 16, the statute of
limitations of three years did not start running until the
plaintiff discovered the crime. The purpose of that exception is
to allow for suppressed memories of children. The floor amendment
repealed and re-enacted the special three-year statute of
limitations to get rid of any civil statute of limitations for
sexual abuse or assault that was a felony, however it did not
deal with the misdemeanors. Therefore, since the misdemeanors no
longer have the special three-year statute of limitations, they
fall under the two-year statute of limitations for torts in
general. The result is that Alaska now has a two-year statute of
limitations for a sexual assault misdemeanor for civil cases. The
other parts of that in other sections that deal with misdemeanors
were written with the assumption that Alaska still had a three-
year statute of limitations.
MS. FINLEY explained that Section 2 amends the exceptions for
minors regarding the statute of limitations. Subsection (b) on
the top of page 2 references the fact that no statute of
limitations applies to felony sexual assaults and it lowers the
statute of limitations for the other offenses to two years. She
noted the old law defined what is meant by "sexual assault" and
"sexual abuse" by a reference to the criminal statutes. The new
law doesn't define it. She suggested this may be an issue the
legislature may want to revisit. She said those two sections are
the only two of interest.
VICE-CHAIR DONLEY noted the bill has a zero fiscal note and no
further committee referrals. He said it appears the only
problematic section is Section 2 and it makes the statutes
consistent with a floor amendment. He noted he is not sure that
he agrees with the floor amendment and asked the will of the
committee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he usually likes to have the opportunity
to review the revisor's bill since it contains such a
"scattering" of things and he has not done that.
VICE-CHAIR DONLEY announced that HB 375 would be held in
committee until Wednesday.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|