Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/22/2019 06:00 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 | |
| SJR3 | |
| SJR4 | |
| SB33 | |
| SB34 | |
| SB52 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 33-ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION
6:08:51 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 33, "An Act relating to pretrial release;
relating to sentencing; relating to treatment program credit
toward service of a sentence of imprisonment; relating to
electronic monitoring; amending Rules 38.2 and 45(d), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
[The committee adopted the work draft CSSB 33(JUD), Version U,
on 4/19/19 and considered Amendments 1-6.]
6:10:44 PM
At-ease.
6:11:50 PM
SENATOR HUGHES reconvened the meeting and moved to adopt
Amendment 7, work order 31-GS1030\U.7, Radford, 4/19/19.
Amendment 7
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 10, line 3, following "if":
Insert ", before trial,"
SENATOR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.
6:12:04 PM
BUDDY WHITT, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, presented the changes in the committee
substitute (CS) for SB 33, Version U. He directed attention to
page 10, Section 15 of SB 33, Version U. He explained that
[subsection (d)] was added because several committee members
recognized the importance of notifying victims when a defendant
is released or discharged from a treatment program for
noncompliance. He said the language specifies mandatory
notification, but not that the notification pertains only to the
pretrial phase. In response to Chair Hughes, he said that Kaci
Schroeder, Department of Law (DOL), requested this language be
added to indicate that mandatory notification pertains to
defendants in the pretrial phase.
6:13:16 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she preferred the broader language, which
would mean that the department would notify victims whenever a
defendant is noncompliant. She said she will support Amendment
7. However, she said that she supports notification of
noncompliance, whether it is the pretrial or post-trial phase.
CHAIR HUGHES clarified that ten years later, the DOL may not
have the contact information for the victim even though the
victim may consider the defendant as an offender [but the case
is closed]. Therefore, notification is limited to the pretrial
phase in this bill.
MR. WHITT offered his belief that the committee added victim
notification in a previous crime bill related to the VINE
[Victim Information and Notification Everyday] system. Further,
victims have the ability to obtain protective orders, he said.
6:15:13 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Division Director, Criminal Division, Central
Office, Department of Law, Anchorage, said that without the
language in Amendment 7, the Department of Law would be
responsible for providing victim notification not just when an
offender is noncompliant for failing to complete treatment in a
pretrial setting, but also while the offenders are in custody.
This could pertain to actions that the DOL may not know about,
he said. For example, it could apply to offenders who are
noncompliant during the period of probation or parole. Although
the department is involved in probation matters, the DOL is not
involved in parole violations since those violations would go to
the Parole Board for consideration. Further, as previously
noted, if treatment was continued beyond probation, the DOL
would not have access to that information. Thus, it would be
very difficult for the DOL to provide notification to victims
for those timeframes. The department is not currently notifying
victims of all probation and parole hearings, he said. If
additional notification is added in this bill, the department
would need to add a fiscal note to reflect its costs. Since the
DOL should already be providing notification for pretrial
activity, it does not need a fiscal note to reflect pretrial
notification, he said.
6:16:50 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if notification was added in another
crime bill for the VINE system when offenders are discharged
from a treatment program for noncompliance.
MR. SKIDMORE asked if she was asking whether VINE notifies
victims when offenders are noncompliant with treatment programs.
MR. WHITT clarified that he merely referenced other victim
notification items the committee has worked on. He explained
that the VINE system is used when offenders are released from
prison, not for those who are discharged from a treatment
program. In this context, notification to victims is limited to
offenders in the pretrial phase, he said. He did not intend to
imply that the VINE system notifies victims when offenders are
involuntarily discharged from a treatment program.
6:18:02 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she would support Amendment 7. She offered
her belief that it would be helpful for victims to know if
someone is discharged from treatment for noncompliance because
the victim could be a target It is also important to know the
outcomes of programs since the state is investing money in them,
she said.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the department does not have a
position on whether that type of notification should be done.
However, the DOL may not be the appropriate entity to provide
that type of notification if the committee chose to require it.
Further, additional notification would have a fiscal impact for
the department. He said he did not have an opinion on whether it
is a good or bad idea.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the DOL already can
provide notification to victims during the pretrial phase. She
said the committee will continue to assess the victim
notification process and, if necessary, add additional
requirements for the parole and probation phases at some point.
SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.
6:19:58 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment 8, work order 31-
GS1030\U.8, Radford, 4/20/19.
AMENDMENT 8
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "continue"
Insert ", the Department of Corrections, and the
Department of Public Safety, make continued"
Page 15, line 7:
Delete "may [SHALL]"
Insert "shall"
Page 15, lines 8 - 12:
Delete "all hearings except for trial and
sentencings [ARRAIGNMENT, PLEAS, AND NON-EVIDENTIARY
BAIL REVIEWS IN TRAFFIC AND MISDEMEANOR CASES; AND
INITIAL APPEARANCE HEARINGS, NON-EVIDENTIARY BAIL
REVIEWS, AND NOT GUILTY PLEA ARRAIGNMENTS IN FELONY
CASES]"
Insert "arraignment, pleas, and non-evidentiary
bail reviews in traffic and misdemeanor cases; and
initial appearance hearings, non-evidentiary bail
reviews, and not guilty plea arraignments in felony
cases"
Page 15, lines 13 - 14:
Delete "However, with [WITH]"
Insert "With"
Page 15, line 16, following "cases.":
Insert "The court may order a defendant to appear
by contemporaneous two-way video conference at any
other hearings."
SENATOR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.
MR. WHITT explained that the Department of Law (DOL) in
conjunction with the Alaska Court System (ACS) requested the
language in Amendment 8. These changes relate to
videoconferencing for arraignments and pleas. The specific
language would read, "It is the intent of the legislature that
the Alaska Court System, the Department of Corrections, and the
Department of Public Safety make continued efforts to find
efficiencies in the criminal justice system and increase the use
of contemporaneous two-way video conference for pretrial
hearings whenever possible." He referred to the next change on
page 15 of Section 25 to amend Court Rule 38.2(b). He reviewed
the specific language. The effect would be to expand use of two-
way video conferences for arraignment, pleas, and non-
evidentiary bail reviews and not guilty plea arraignments in
felony cases, unless otherwise ordered for cause stated by the
presiding judge. With the defendant's consent, sentencings may
be done by video conferences in traffic and misdemeanor cases,
he said. The court may also order a defendant to appear by
contemporaneous two-way video conference at any other hearings.
6:22:26 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked Mr. Whitt to clarify the terminology
change from "may" to "shall."
MR. WHITT referred to page 15, line 7, and read, "In those court
locations in which a contemporaneous two-way video conference
system has been approved by the supreme court and has been
installed, in custody defendants shall appear by way of
[contemporaneous two way video conference ?.]"
CHAIR HUGHES stated that the language would return to "shall."
6:23:05 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed interest in another crime bill, SB
32, that also contains a court rule change. She asked for
clarification on whether Court Rule 38.2 will require a two-
thirds vote in the Senate for passage.
MR. SKIDMORE said the rule says that if the change is
substantive, then a two-thirds vote is required. He said he
believes this change would require a two-thirds majority vote
but he would defer to Ms. Meade.
6:24:25 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System, Anchorage, responded that this court rule change
would require a two-thirds majority vote. She referred to page
18, lines 15-17, of Version K, which indicates that the court
rules will only take effect if those sections receive a two-
thirds majority vote from each body as required by the
Constitution of the State of Alaska. In response to Senator
Reinbold, she said that if sections that require a two-thirds
majority vote do not receive it, those sections would not pass,
but the remainder of the bill would become law.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she was glad to learn the rest of the bill
would pass even if the substantive court rule sections did not.
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that Amendment 8 would
amend Court Rule 38.2 and rename television to contemporaneous
two-way video conference and would insert the provision that the
court may order a defendant to appear by two-way video
conference at any other hearings.
MS. MEADE confirmed that was the change to the court rule. She
said that in SB 33, Sections 6-17 have the effect of reverting
the language to what the criminal rule currently reads. However,
it also adds that the court can order defendants to appear at
more hearings by video conference, which was the intent of the
bill sponsor, she said.
SENATOR KIEHL asked which other hearings would be included.
MS. MEADE answered that pretrial criminal hearings can be as
simple as a status conference, but also include a number of
other hearings that can occur before a trial, including pre-
indictment hearings. She said that Amendment 8 would add
flexibility for the court to avoid transporting defendants for
non-substantive hearings. As previously mentioned, the Alaska
Supreme Court is very interested in videoconferencing and this
rule prompted the Alaska Court System to work with the
Department of Law to develop language amenable to both the
department and the court system.
6:27:28 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the changes to Court Rule 38.2
were substantial enough to require a two-thirds majority vote.
MS. MEADE responded that it is not whether the change is
substantial, but rather if the change is substantive or
procedural. She said these court rules are procedural and for
the legislature to change them requires a two-thirds majority
vote. She offered her belief that the Legislative Legal Services
attorney recognized that during the drafting process.
6:29:29 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 8 was adopted.
6:29:48 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report the committee substitute (CS)
for SB 33, work order 31-GS1030\U, Version U as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
SENATOR KIEHL objected.
6:30:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Reinbold, Micciche, and
Hughes voted in favor of reporting the CSSB 33, Version U as
amended, from committee and Senator Kiehl voted against it.
Therefore, the CSSB 33(JUD) was reported from the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee by a 3:1 vote.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR 3 Version A.PDF |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 4 version A.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/27/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/27/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/27/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| CSSB 33(JUD) Version U.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| CSSB33 Explanation of Changes from Version M to U.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| CSSB 33 Amendments.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| CSSB 34(JUD) Version K.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| CSSB34 Explanation of Changes from Version U to K.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 52 Version U.PDF |
HL&C 3/11/2020 3:15:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 2/11/2020 9:00:00 AM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Sectional Analysis 2.19.19.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Title 4 Bill Summary Changes SB 76 (2018) to SB 52 (2019).pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 52 Sectional Analysis v.U.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Summary of Proposed Penalties.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 52 Summary of Goals.pdf |
HL&C 3/9/2020 3:15:00 PM SFIN 2/11/2020 9:00:00 AM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |