02/24/1997 09:00 AM Senate HES

                                                                               
                 SB  66 CRIMES & CRIME VICTIMS                                
                                                                              
 Number 147                                                                    
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN WILKEN  introduced  SB 66  as the next order of business            
 before the committee.                                                         
                                                                               
  ANNE CARPENETI , Assistant Attorney General, explained that SB 66            
 amends the bail statutes in Title 12 so as to agree with the                  
 constitutional amendment Article 1 Section 24.  SB 66 also amends             
 the victims rights statute, AS 12.61 in order to mirror language in           
 the amendment and cross references to that statute, the notice                
 rights from other titles.                                                     
  CHAIRMAN WILKEN  noted that the committee packet included a detailed         
 sectional analysis of SB 42.                                                  
                                                                               
  JAYNE ANDREEN , Executive Director of the Council on Domestic                
 Violence & Sexual Assault, supported SB 66.  SB 66 ensures the                
 right of the victim to be present at any proceedings pertaining to            
 the crime.  Alaskan's have passed a constitutional amendment                  
 ensuring this as well.  Ms. Andreen noted that this issue is also             
 being reviewed at the federal level.  SB 66 expands the domestic              
 violence bill passed last year by factoring in the safety of                  
 victims of  all  violent crimes during sentencing and release                 
 procedures.  In response to Senator Green, Ms. Andreen clarified              
 that the safety of the victim would be factored in during any part            
 of the process from the conditions of bail to release.                        
                                                                               
 Number 228                                                                    
                                                                               
 Ms. Andreen felt that the tightened standards for the court when              
 ordering a psychological examination of a victim in Section 13 is             
 very important, particularly in sexual assault and domestic                   
 violence cases.  During such cases the credibility and mental                 
 capacity of the victim are often inappropriately questioned by the            
 defense.  Section 17 provides statutory protection to the records             
 that the Violent Crimes Compensation Board has on the cases being             
 reviewed.  The Violent Crimes Compensation Board by virtue of the             
 federal guidelines must keep those records confidential, however              
 the records are often subpoenaed in sexual assault cases.  In such            
 cases, the defense wants access to that information which is                  
 available to the defense through the course of discovery.                     
 Therefore, the Violent Crimes Compensation Board spends much time             
 filing motions to thwart the subpoenas.  Section 17 would bring               
 Alaska in compliance with the federal guidelines the board must               
 follow.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Ms. Andreen was concerned with Section 6 regarding serious                    
 provocation in homicide cases because the language could exclude              
 victims of domestic violence.  Section 8 which establishes a crime            
 with the interference of a report of domestic violence is also of             
 concern.  Ms. Andreen was supportive of this crime being                      
 established, however it should exclude a victim from being charged            
 with this crime.  The victim should be allowed to determine whether           
 or not the crime of domestic violence is reported.  Ms. Andreen               
 explained that often during a violent episode, the victim attempts            
 to call 911 for protection and the perpetrator dismantles the phone           
 to stop the call.  Although such action by the perpetrator is not             
 a crime in his/her own home, the seriousness of the assault is                
 compounded and mentally and physically increases the risk of the              
 victim.                                                                       
                                                                               
  SENATOR WARD  believed that Section 8 meant that it is illegal to            
 interfere with the reporting of domestic violence; could that                 
 include the request not to call?   JAYNE ANDREEN  deferred to the             
 Department of Law regarding the interpretation of interference. Ms.           
 Andreen supported Section 8 and noted that there are many subtle              
 ways in which the perpetrator can interfere with the victim's                 
 ability to gain control.  Ms. Andreen foresaw this being a                    
 combination charge with assault in most cases.                                
                                                                               
  SENATOR WARD  understood that most judges already consider the               
 safety of the victim when determining bail.   JAYNE ANDREEN  said             
 that anecdotal information from the courts indicate that many                 
 judges do consider the safety of the victim, but Ms. Andreen did              
 not believe it to be done consistently.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 326                                                                    
                                                                               
  BLAIR MCCUNE , Deputy Public Defender, said that he would review the         
 bill.  Section 1, 14, and 22 would change a long-standing                     
 evidentiary rule which ensures that a witness's testimony will not            
 be impacted by the testimony of other witnesses.  Mr. McCune                  
 recognized the constitutional amendment, however the main concern             
 is to maintain due process and fairness in a trial.  The judge                
 should have the discretion to allow witnesses to testify one at a             
 time.  Mr. McCune pointed out that the case in New Hampshire                  
 acknowledged the courts discretion to exclude witnesses.                      
                                                                               
 The concerns with Section 6 have been mentioned by others.  The law           
 recognizes that when people are under the strain of intense                   
 emotions of fear and anger, the person does not intend to do what             
 he/she does.  Mr. McCune believed that should continue.  Mr. McCune           
 echoed the concerns regarding the definition of interference in               
 Section 8.  AS 11.56.700, resisting and interfering with arrest,              
 requires force or criminal mischief in order to charge.  There                
 needs to be a clear definition of interference.  Section 13 is a              
 problem because the current law is protective of victims rights,              
 but in some cases a mental examination of the victim is necessary.            
 Section 17 is a rare occurrence of a second autopsy in which the              
 judge should have the discretion to order.  Mr. McCune said that              
 Section 19 may lead to propensity evidence whereby a juror may be             
 able to find that if a person did something before, he/she did it             
 on this occasion.                                                             
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN WILKEN  asked if there was any discussion on the bill.              
 Hearing none, Chairman Wilken announced that SB 66 would be held              
 for further consideration.  In response to Senator Ellis, Chairman            
 Wilken did not know when the legislation would be before the                  
 committee again.                                                              
                                                                               
  SENATOR LEMAN  noted that he had worked on the constitutional                
 amendment and was interested in the implementation of statutes to             
 make the amendment work.  Senator Leman expressed the desire to               
 continue to work on this.