Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/13/2019 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB12 | |
| SB35 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 12-ASSAULT; SEX OFFENSES; SENTENCING CREDIT
1:32:16 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 12, "An Act relating to
crime and criminal procedure; relating to assault and sexual
assault; relating to harassment; relating to credit toward a
sentence of imprisonment for time spent in a treatment program
or under electronic monitoring; and providing for an effective
date."
CHAIR HUGHES remarked that she scheduled SB 12 and SB 35 to be
heard together since these bills attempt to close a loophole
that allowed for the Justin Schneider case. This bill, SB 12,
has similar provisions to SB 35, a crime bill introduced by the
Governor. However, he felt it was important to have a stand-
alone bill since it improves the chances that it could make its
way through the legislature this year and highlights the desire
to eliminate free passes for such crimes.
1:33:10 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE, as sponsor of SB 12, characterized this bill
as the "Justin Schneider Loophole Elimination Act." After
further research, he introduced a sponsor substitute for SB 12.
1:34:05 PM
CHAIR HUGHES clarified that the committee would be considering
[work order 31-LS0263\U, referred to as] Version U, which was
read across the floor.
1:34:20 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that he has a wife and four daughters and
has been working to address the issue of domestic violence and
sexual assault in Alaska for many years. He said he was appalled
with the results of the Justin Schneider case just as were many
Alaskans. He paraphrased from his sponsor statement, which read
as follows:
Sponsor Substitute for Senate Bill 12 (SSSB 12)
eliminates loopholes in Alaska law that have
contributed to the inability to hold perpetrators of
sexual assault adequately accountable for their
actions. The bill will prove to victims that Alaskans
have had enough and will stand with them to prosecute
and incarcerate sexual predators while creating
adequate deterrence for future violent crimes.
1:34:56 PM
SSB12 removes the "Schneider Loopholes" in Alaska's
criminal code that allowed a violent sexual predator
to walk free without jail time last September. The
result of Justin Schneider walking free garnered
national attention as Alaskans stood by in disbelief
that such a free pass could occur after Justin
Schneider brutally strangled a woman to the point of
unconsciousness and then ejaculated on her. The plea
deal decision also resulted in the unprecedented
removal of a judge (Corey) for decisions made in the
case.
1:36:40 PM
SSSB12 will improve our sexual assault laws in several
important ways: 1) it will classify unwanted contact
with semen as a sexual crime, which means perpetrators
can be required to register as sex offenders for this
crime, 2) it will require that strangulation to the
point of unconsciousness is defined as assault in the
first degree, which carries a sentence of 5 to 20
years, and 3) it would eliminate credit toward time
served for electronic monitoring.
In recent years, one outrageous story after another
about criminals getting a slap on the wrist has
dominated our headlines. The case of Justin Schneider,
however, forces us to confront just how badly our
criminal justice system has been failing victims and
survivors of sexual assault. SSSB12 will define how we
prosecute specific areas with loopholes in domestic
violence and sexual assault. I look forward to working
with my colleagues in the legislature and with
Governor Dunleavy's administration to ensure the
safety of all Alaskans.
It is time to stand up and say enough is enough; there
will be no more free passes for violent sexual
perpetrators in Alaska. I encourage support from
legislators and the Alaska public to expedite passage
of SSSB12, eliminating the "Schneider Loopholes" in
our state's criminal code, and I respectfully request
support for this important legislation.
1:38:16 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that he worked with the administration on
the crime bills. He said that understanding the logic of the
changes is very important and Mr. Skidmore can assist the
committee in that regard.
1:38:45 PM
EDRA MORLEDGE, Staff, Senator Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, provided a sectional analysis of SSSB 12, which
read as follows:
SSSB 12 Sectional Summary v. U
An Act relating to assault in the first degree;
relating to sex offenses; and relating to credit
toward a sentence of imprisonment for time spent in a
treatment program or under electronic monitoring.
1:38:53 PM
Title Change:
Section 1: Amends AS 11.41.200(a), assault in the
first degree, to add new subsection 5, which adds a
person "knowingly causes another to become unconscious
by means of a dangerous instrument" and defines
"dangerous instrument" in accordance with the
definition in AS 11.81.900:
Section 2: Amends AS 11.41.425(a), sexual assault in
the third degree, to add subsection (7), "engages in
masturbation and ejaculates on a person without the
consent of that person."
Section 3: Amends AS 11.61.118(a) to clarify that the
crime of harassment in the first degree, which
includes offensive physical "contact with human or
animal blood, mucus, saliva, semen, urine, vomitus, or
feces," is separate from the sex offense contained in
this bill.
1:40:09 PM
Section 4: Amends 11.81.900(b)(60) to include
"knowingly causing the victim to come into contact
with ejaculate" to the definition of "sexual contact."
Section 5: Amends AS 12.10.010(b) to provide for a 10-
year statute of limitation for the new crime described
in section 2 of this bill.
Section 6: Repeals AS 12.55.027(d) stating that a
court "may not grant credit against a sentence of
imprisonment for time spent in a private residence or
under electronic monitoring."
Section 7: Amends AS 12.55.027(e) to remove
"electronic monitoring" as an option for claiming
credit towards a sentence of imprisonment.
Section 8: Repeals AS 55.027(g)(3), which allowed for
sentencing credit for sex crimes.
Section 9: Applicability. Section 10: Effective date
clause.
1:42:32 PM
MS. MORLEDGE explained that the Department of Law raised some
issues during discussions on the bill. She reviewed suggested
language changes the committee might consider. The language in
Section 2 is duplicative. The language in Section 3 relates to
harassment in the first degree. The sponsor would like to remove
the term "semen" from that section and replace it with "coming
into contact with semen" as a separate sexual offense. In
Section 4, the sponsor would like to change the term "ejaculate"
back to "semen." She deferred to Mr. Skidmore to provide more
details.
1:43:20 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General; Director, Criminal
Division, Department of Law, reviewed proposed changes to the
sponsor substitute for SB 12 He agreed that paragraph (7) of SB
12 is duplicative after the definition for sexual contact in
Section 4 [AS 11.81.900(b)(60)] of the bill is changed, so it is
not necessary to have a second [paragraph], that it was a
different concept that had been considered. He said that it is
cleaner to remove the language.
He referred to Section 3, on page 3 of SSSB 12, to proposed
language in AS 11.61.118(a)(1), which read, "(1) under
circumstances not proscribed in AS 11.41.425(a)(7)," however,
that was language that was proposed to be added, but if it is
removed the remaining language does not make sense. The word
"semen" can be removed because it will be covered by "sexual
contact" in Section 4. The Department of Law always advises the
legislature to use terms currently found in statute. These are
terms either defined by case law or that are used because
practitioners typically use them. Whenever a new or different
term is used, it begs the question of why that term changed, he
said. He recommended that "semen" be used instead of "ejaculate"
for the purpose of consistency.
1:45:09 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE remarked that it is uncomfortable to discuss
these terms, which emphasizes the importance of the bill. He has
held discussions with the legislative attorneys, Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency and with Mr.
Skidmore, Deputy Attorney General; Director, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, as to whether the term "semen" requires the
presence of sperm, and whether the term "ejaculate" does not.
MR. SKIDMORE said that he subsequently spoke to the Department
of Public Safety's [Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory] and
based on his conversation with the lab, the term "semen" is the
better term to use since it does not require the presence of
spermatozoa and the lab can test for the substance. This term is
already used in statute and introducing a different term could
raise questions about the precise term.
1:46:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that Mr. Skidmore
indicated that changing the definition of "sexual contact" to
include "semen" meant it was not necessary to add the penalty of
sexual assault in the third degree. He asked for the specific
reference.
MR. SKIDMORE referred to page 2, Section 2 of SSSB 12 to AS
11.41.425(a), which read as follows:
(a) An offender commits the crime of sexual assault in
the third degree if the offender
(1) engages in sexual contact with a person who the
offender knows is ?
He said that the existing statutes and the framework for sexual
assault and sexual abuse of a minor have three different
categories of elements to create a cascading framework of
conduct that is criminalized. The three areas include the
conduct itself, the mental state of the victim, and whether the
person has another relationship with the child.
MR. SKIDMORE elaborated on the three elements, such that the
conduct first considers whether it is sexual penetration or
sexual contact. Second, it considers the mental state of the
victim, and whether it is without consent or if the victim is
mentally incapable, incapacitated, or unaware. The third
category considers whether the person who engages in the
criminal conduct has another relationship, for example, if the
offender is a parent, coach, or teacher of the victim.
He said that these elements create a rather complex cascading
framework. However, only adding the language in paragraph (7)
would ignore the rest of the existing framework. Altering the
definition of sexual contact will take advantage of the
framework developed over time by case law for consistency, he
said.
1:49:21 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether within that framework, this would
vary the kind of contact being defined from the most egregious
example to the least horrible one.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that sexual contact is found in two
different types of crimes: sexual assault and sexual abuse of a
minor. He reviewed the penalties for sexual assault with the
most serious offense that encompasses contact, which is sexual
assault in the second degree and is a class B felony. It ranges
to sexual assault in the fourth degree, which is a class A
misdemeanor. Sexual abuse of a minor that includes sexual
contact is classified as sexual abuse of a minor in the second
degree and is a class B felony. He would need to refer to
statutes to confirm whether the penalties range to sexual abuse
of a minor in the fourth degree.
1:50:28 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether these cascading levels of offenses
fit with the sponsor's intent.
1:51:08 PM
MS. MORLEDGE asked for further clarification if his question is
whether adding the definition would accomplish the sponsor's
goal.
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that the penalty was
originally a class C felony, but under the bill the penalties
fall on a spectrum.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that he was unsure of his specific
question.
1:52:04 PM
CHAIR HUGHES remarked it would be helpful if Mr. Skidmore has
knowledge of how other crime bills might impact this one.
1:52:24 PM
MR. SKIDMORE answered that nothing in SB 35 or other crime bills
will impact the sentencing being discussed in SB 12. He stated
that the other crime bills affect non-sex crimes. In response to
Senator Kiehl, he directed attention to the language on page 3,
of SSSB 12, to paragraph (7), which read "engages in
masturbation and ejaculates on a person without consent," which
would ignore the circumstances in which a person is
incapacitated or mentally incapable. He related several
scenarios to illustrate that incapacitated people would not be
covered by this subsection. However, by adding it to the
definition of "sexual contact," all of the other scenarios
discussed would be covered. Omitting it would risk missing large
portions of conduct that the legislature already has determined
should be criminalized. He acknowledged that the bill would
increase some penalties from a class C to a class B felony.
However, the legislature has already decided to define "sexual
contact" as including "genitals, anus, or female breasts," which
is classified as a class B felony under the law. He said that to
make every penalty a class C felony would ignore the existing
framework and could result in unintended consequences or create
gaps in the law. He related his understanding is that SSSB 12
intends to address a gap with unjust contact that occurred
without a true penalty for the offender.
1:55:32 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE expressed concern over the removal of "semen"
from AS 11.61.118(a) since it was originally intended to protect
correctional and law enforcement officers from unwanted
offensive contact with human fluid. He asked for further
clarification whether it would be considered a sexual assault if
someone flung semen at another person.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes. He said he grappled with that but was
not able to differentiate in legal terms the conduct of coming
into contact with semen inside a correctional facility versus
the same conduct outside the facility that could be proved in a
court of law. He considered other types of substances or bodily
fluids, including human or animal blood, mucus, saliva, urine,
vomitus, and feces, but none of these substances are produced
through sexual activity. However, semen cannot be found without
some type of sexual activity, he said. He pointed out that the
provision of harassment was enacted some time ago in response to
conduct within the state correctional facilities, in which
inmates were engaging in this behavior to harass correctional
officers in facilities. However, it was never designed to
address sexual conduct, he said.
MR. SKIDMORE concluded that the criminal justice system must
rely on the discretion of those within the system. It is nearly
impossible to try to legislate every possible hypothetical
situation. Instead, the state relies on discretion, such that
prosecutors would review the facts of each case. He found it
highly unlikely that going forward cases would be handled in the
same way as the Justin Schneider case was handled.
1:59:26 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if a urine sample sent to a lab contained
trace amounts of semen, whether the person would be charged with
offensive physical contact rather than sexual assault.
MR. SKIDMORE said he was not an expert in that analysis, so in
those instances he would consult with the lab. He indicated that
prosecutors would seek to determine the core conduct and would
not likely prosecute it at a higher level. He explained that
every crime must have two elements, a mens rea or the mental
element, and the actus rea, which is actual act. In the scenario
in which an inmate would urinate and fling it on another person,
the inmate would need to know the urine contained semen in order
to be charged at a higher level of crime. The prosecution would
need to prove the knowingly intent, which would be highly
unlikely to prove, he said.
2:02:07 PM
CHAIR HUGHES read the definition of mucus, which is "a viscous
slimy mixture of mucins, water, electrolytes, epithelial cells
and leukocyte that is secreted by glands lining the nasal,
esophageal, and the nasal esophageal, and other body cavities
and serves primarily to protect and lubricate surfaces." She
offered her belief that this scenario would be covered.
MR. SKIDMORE was unsure how the lab would define it, but the lab
can determine if a substance is semen or something else.
CHAIR HUGHES clarified that if something is thrown and not used
for a sexual act, the definition of mucus is broad enough to
cover it.
SENATOR MICCICHE offered his belief that an equal protection
issue would apply since a person could also be sexually
assaulted by a female. He said that he consulted the lab to
determine if it could detect a substance [in females] similar to
semen but was advised that detectible substances are only
produced by males.
2:04:28 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed concern with how the current and
prior crime bills mesh. For example, she wondered whether
granting credit against sentences for imprisonment for time
spent in a private residence or electronic monitoring was in
Senate Bill 91.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that Senate Bill 91 addressed electronic
monitoring and page 4, Section 6 of SSSB 12 brings it back to
pre-Senate Bill 91 law.
SENATOR REINBOLD offered her belief that the public wants Senate
Bill 91 repealed. She hoped that this process can be as clear
and clean as possible. She expressed concern that some penalties
would be reduced from felonies to misdemeanors in the bill.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that nothing else in SSSB 12 relates to
Senate Bill 91. He stated that SSSB 12 addresses gaps in the law
discovered in the Justin Schneider case. The bill addresses
strangulation by adding another subsection to assault in the
first degree, which was not previously addressed in law. Second,
it would address unwanted contact with semen. Third, it would
address electronic monitoring by reverting to pre-Senate Bill 91
law.
2:08:04 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said that she preferred to be briefed so that
she fully understands the changes.
SENATOR MICCICHE responded that SSSB 12 would isolate four
issues that led to a violent sexual offender not serving time or
being required to be on a sexual offender list. First, SSSB 12
would reclassify unwanted contact with semen as a sexual crime.
Second, it would classify masturbation and ejaculating on a
person as sexual assault in the third degree, which was not
previously a crime. Third, the bill would classify strangulation
as sexual assault in the first degree. Finally, it would
eliminate electronic monitoring, which was being counted as full
credit towards incarceration. In the Justin Schneider case, the
offender was given full credit for time spent on electronic
monitor and was never imprisoned for his heinous crime. Nothing
in SSSB 12 would reduce the classification of any crime to a
lower level.
2:10:24 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Skidmore to confirm that nothing in the
bill reduces crime classifications.
MR. SKIDMORE agreed that nothing in the bill reduces penalties
Instead, the bill takes conduct that was criminalized as a class
A misdemeanor under harassment in the first degree and adds it
to the definition of sexual contact. He related that sexual
contact is found in several statutes, including sexual assault
and sexual abuse of a minor. It would increase the penalty for a
class A misdemeanor to a class B or class C sex felony. In some
cases, it would also retain the classification of the crime as a
class A misdemeanor, but further classify it as a sexual crime.
He was unsure which classification would remain a misdemeanor,
but the crime would be considered sexual assault in the fourth
degree. However, the primary conduct of a case, such as the
Justin Schneider case, would result in sexual assault in the
third degree, which is a class C felony that carries a penalty
of 2-12 years as opposed to a one-year maximum penalty under
harassment.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Skidmore to cite the specific reference
for members.
2:12:52 PM
At-ease.
2:15:06 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
MR. SKIDMORE referred to AS 11.41.427, sexual assault in the
fourth degree, which is a classified as a class A misdemeanor.
He explained that this statute has five subsections. [Paragraph
(1) and (2)] pertain to employees at a correctional facility or
another place designated by the commissioner of the Department
of Corrections (DOC) when the offender engages in sexual contact
with a person that the offender knows is incarcerated. For
example, this would apply to a correctional officer who engages
in sexual contact with someone incarcerated by the DOC. This
crime is currently classified as class A misdemeanor and is
unchanged by the bill.
He explained the next [paragraph, (2)] refers to the same
conduct of sexual contact by an employee who engages in sexual
penetration with a person who the offender knows is committed to
the custody of the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) and the juvenile victim is 18-19 years of age. This crime
is classified as sexual assault in the fourth degree and would
also apply to someone who is the legal guardian of the victim.
MR. SKIDMORE said that the third instance [paragraph (4)]
relates to a peace officer having sexual contact, with reckless
disregard, with a person in custody or apparent custody of the
law enforcement officer, which is classified as a class A
misdemeanor. The penalty would increase if sexual penetration
occurred to a class C felony. The highest level would pertain to
engaging in the conduct without the person's consent, which is
classified as a class B felony. The penalty is increased to a
class C felony if the activity involved a person who was
mentally incapable, incapacitated, or unaware. This would
increase the penalty in the case of Justin Schneider from 30
days to a range of a 2-12-year sentence.
2:18:00 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD related a scenario in her community involving a
police officer who engaged in sexual activity with a victim in
custody. She emphasized that this is a very important issue in
her community. She expressed concern that the classification is
a class A misdemeanor, which carries a pretty small penalty.
MR. SKIDMORE offered to review the exemptions under the statute,
but the main point is that this bill will increase sentences. He
said he recognizes that some people might not agree with the
current statutes for sexual assault in the fourth degree, but
this statute has not been changed by any criminal justice reform
bill in the last several years.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the sexual crimes
were excluded from some of the sentence reductions in Senate
Bill 91.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that is correct.
SENATOR REINBOLD said, "but not all of them."
MR. SKIDMORE responded that this gets complicated because a few
statutes that people think of as sexual in nature were not
classified as sex crimes under the sentencing statutes. He
explained that SB 35, which will be discussed later today
intends to address that issue.
2:20:52 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked to address the concern he has heard that
SSSB 12 reduces how some crimes are handled. He asked Mr.
Skidmore to explain the effect of removing "semen" from AS
11.61.118(a), which is classified as harassment. This bill would
increase the seriousness of the crime by relocating it to the
sexual assault statutes, he said.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that it would increase the penalties.
2:21:46 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to page 2, lines 4-6, of SSSB 12 to
strangulation. She asked how it would be possible to prove that
a person becomes unconscious. She suggested that the act of
being strangled might be even scarier for the victim. She
expressed concern that if unconsciousness cannot be proven that
it might not be possible to prosecute the perpetrator.
MR. SKIDMORE emphasized that assault in the second degree, which
is normally how strangulation is prosecuted, has not been
altered or changed. He explained that assault in the second
degree indicates assault by hands or other objects that impedes
or constricts breathing or circulation. He said that SSSB 12
would add the concept of causing someone to become unconscious
by means of a dangerous instrument. A dangerous instrument
includes choking or strangulating them with one's hands.
Therefore, the lower level of conduct is already covered.
This bill would create a second tier to say if someone is
causing strangulation and the person becomes unconscious, a
higher penalty would apply. He agreed that this may not be easy
or straightforward; however, that does not mean it cannot be
done. In fact, to cause unconsciousness takes a small amount of
pressure and can happen in less than a minute. He said that he
has been a prosecutor for 20 years and during that time victims
have reported that they lost consciousness and they have
described how the world began to close in on them. Sometimes
victims describe being attacked and all of a sudden realizing
that they were in a different room, but they had no knowledge of
how that occurred. Prosecutors would need to assess the type of
detail in a case that would allow them to prove to a jury beyond
a reasonable doubt that the person lost consciousness. However,
the offender could still be convicted of assault in the second
degree, he said
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that this crime is not
limited to sexual assault but could also apply to violence
without sexual assault.
MR. SKIDMORE acknowledged that Section 1 of SSSB 12 does not
require the crime to be of a sexual nature and is related to
strangling another person to unconsciousness.
2:26:38 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether Justin Schneider was charged with
strangulation.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes. He said Justin Schneider was charged
with assault in the second degree and plead to that crime.
2:26:57 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed concern over potential loopholes.
MR. SKIDMORE turned to the definition in AS 11.81.900(b)(14)(B),
which read, "hands or other objects when used to impede normal
breathing or circulation of blood by applying pressure on the
throat or neck or obstructing the nose or mouth;" and said this
language would make it a dangerous instrument. In further
response to Senator Reinbold, he said he has not experienced any
problem with the definition.
2:29:00 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that people are concerned that Justin
Schneider was not charged with attempted murder for the
strangulation since a person who becomes unconscious is
literally seconds away from death. He asked whether intent had
been the issue.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that the crime of attempted murder
specifically requires mens rea [mental state], the conscious
objective to cause the result of killing someone. He said that
the prosecution would need to prove the conscious objective, and
in the Justin Schneider's case the prosecutors did not have any
evidence that he was attempting to kill her. However, many
instances in which a perpetrator strangles someone could result
in a murder charge.
2:30:49 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for further clarification on intent when
someone is strangled to the point of unconsciousness and is
sexually assaulted.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that mens rea would apply. He referred to
page 3, lines 4-6, to paragraph (5) of SSSB 12, which
specifically uses "knowingly" and not "intent," which are very
different. A person knows whether the conduct being engaged in
could cause someone to become unconscious, which is very
different than to say the perpetrator intended to kill the
victim.
2:32:00 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on the
classification of the crime for a perpetrator who causes someone
to become unconscious.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that assault in the first degree is a
class A felony.
2:32:22 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to page [4], lines 9-12, to the statute of
limitations. She asked him to identify the crimes that have a
ten-year statute of limitations. She noted that all other crimes
have a five-year statute of limitations. She further asked
whether this is similar to other states' statutes of limitation.
MR. SKIDMORE said he was unsure of the statute of limitations
for other states. He asked for further clarification on the
specific cite.
CHAIR HUGHES referred to page 4, lines 9-12, to Section 5 of
SSSB 12.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that under AS 12.10.110, certain crimes
do not have any statute of limitations, including murder and
certain sexual assaults. He said that this provision would add
AS 11.41.425(a)(1) or (5)-(7), assault in the third degree. He
related that a five-year statute of limitation would apply to
most offenses and a 10-year statute of limitations would apply
to other offenses. He said that another set of offenses does not
have any statute of limitation.
2:34:45 PM
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the more heinous
crimes against a person would not have any statute of
limitation, that pretty serious crimes would have a 10-year
statute of limitation and less serious ones would have a 5-year
statute of limitation.
2:35:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL offered his belief that on the whole this bill is
a good and important piece of legislation. He referred to the
harassment approach in terms of semen. He expressed concern that
some criminal situations occur, such as someone who is assaulted
and comes into contact with semen. These crimes are not
considered sexual in nature but disgusting criminal behavior. He
agreed correctional officers should be protected from criminal
behavior. He asked whether it was possible to separate out a sex
crime, in which the offender should be on a sex registry, and
the type of assaults that should result in criminal sanctions
but are not sexual predation and are assaults.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that he comes back to the specific
substance of semen that can only be created by a sexual act. He
has reviewed and grappled with statutory language to create a
distinction between these types of conduct; however, he has not
been able to appropriately separates the two crimes and still be
able to prosecute them.
2:38:37 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he might have drafting ideas to avoid
putting perpetrators who commit assault that is not sexual in
nature on the sex registry and still not have loopholes.
2:39:04 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he thinks the discretion of the courts
would separate the crimes. He offered his belief that some
criminal assaults in prisons that involve contact with semen
would be sexual assaults, but other activity might be a lesser
crime. He suggested that this would protect the discretion of
the court since it would not require being charged at the higher
level.
2:40:08 PM
CHAIR HUGHES offered her belief that the definition of mucus
would fit.
[SB 12 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJUD Agenda 2.13.19.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 12 - Version M.PDF |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 12 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Sectional Summary Version M.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB12 Supporting Documents DOL Press Release 09.21.2018.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB12 Supporting Documents KTUU Article.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB12 Supporting Documents KTVA Article.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB12 Supporting Documents Washington Post Article.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB12-Fiscal Note-DHSS-PS.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB12-Fiscal Note-DOA-OPA.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB12-Fiscal Note-JUD-ACS.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB12-Fiscal Note-DOA-PDA.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB12-Fiscal Note-LAW-CRIM.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB35 - Version A.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB 35 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB 35 Highlights.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB 35 - Sex Offenses Sectional.pdf |
SFIN 5/4/2019 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB35-DOC-PopMgmt-IDO-FN.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB35-DOC-PopMgmt-ParoleBd-FN.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB35-DPS-CJISP-FN.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB35-HSS-PS-FN.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB35-Law-CrimDiv-FN.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB35-DOC-PopMgmt-IDO-FN.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB35-DOC-PopMgmt-ParoleBd-FN.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB35-DPS-CJISP-FN.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB35-HSS-PS-FN.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB35-Law-CrimDiv-FN.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| SB 12 Version U.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Sponsor Statement v. U.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Sectional Summary Version U.pdf |
SJUD 2/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |