Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/18/2005 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar: Mr. Joseph N. Faulhaber | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar: Ms. Terry L. Thurbon | |
| SB154 | |
| SB86 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 154 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 86 | ||
SB 154- JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS
9:08:34 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 154 to be up for consideration.
Ms. HEATHER BRAKES, staff to Senator Therriault, introduced SB
154. SB 154 would improve the state's ability to hold juvenile
offenders accountable. It would also increase efficiency of the
juvenile justice system by allowing telephonic hearings in some
court proceedings. SB 154 addresses a loophole and places
jurisdiction for an adult discovered to have committed a crime
while under the age of 18.
9:11:22 AM
MS. PATTY WARE, director, Division of Juvenile Justice,
Department of Corrections (DOC), voiced support of SB 154. She
advised the committee of two cases in Kenai involving serious
charges relating to sexual abuse of a minor. The Alaska Superior
Court, in both cases, ruled there was no legal jurisdiction
either for the juvenile justice system or the criminal court
system. The first instance was of a 19 year old who committed a
sexual assault when he was 17.
9:13:05 AM
The second situation was of a 20 year old alleged to have
committed crimes when he was 15 and 17. The Alaska Superior
Court dismissed both cases due to lack of jurisdiction. She read
a quote from the Alaska Superior Court ruling on the second
case:
The court recognizes the state's concern that this
interpretation can allow juvenile criminal activity to
go unpunished if the crime did not come to light until
thth
after the juvenile's 18 or 19 birthday. This result
is not of the court's making. For whatever reason, the
Legislature has mandated that juvenile jurisdiction in
all cases comes to an end at the time of the
th
juvenile's 19 birthday unless the juvenile consents
to a longer period. The resolution of this problem
rests not with the court, but with the Legislature.
9:14:47 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked whether either order was appealed.
MS. WARE admitted she was not sure. Section 1 of SB 154 adds a
new subsection to the delinquency statutes establishing legal
jurisdiction. Section 2 establishes applicability of the rest of
the delinquency laws to this particular class of minor, which
are persons over the age of 18 by the time they come before the
court.
9:17:10 AM
MR. TONY NEWMAN, program officer, Division of Juvenile Justice
demonstrated a visual presentation on a flip chart that related
to juvenile and adult offense jurisdictions. There are a couple
of instances where juvenile offenders are managed in the adult
system, such as murder and armed robbery. Another way a juvenile
can be forwarded into the adult criminal system is through AS
47.12.100 where the state must demonstrate the juvenile is not
amenable to treatment. Dual sentencing provisions apply to
serious offenses such as repeated felony crimes where the
district attorney can seek both a juvenile and adult sentence
for a minor.
9:20:35 AM
SB 154 addresses situations where crimes are not discovered
until after the person has turned 18 and will give the state the
opportunity for restitution.
9:24:03 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked whether the first move would be to ask for
the discretionary waiver into adult court.
MR. NEWMAN said it would depend on the offense and the offender.
9:25:57 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked whether subsequent hearings would be in
adult court.
MR. NEWMAN answered yes.
SENATOR FRENCH asked whether SB 154 would grant the state
jurisdiction of an adult in juvenile court.
9:27:34 AM
MR. NEWMAN responded yes.
9:28:51 AM
MS. WARE continued the second half of SB 154 allows the juvenile
justice system to use state resources. Section 9 proposes a
change to the delinquency rules. It specifies specific hearings
where a juvenile has a right to be physically present. It allows
for telephonic presence. Currently the DOC spends over $200,000
a year transporting young people to court.
9:32:13 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked where the evidentiary hearing would fit
into the scheme.
MS. WARE said those types of issues happen fairly infrequently.
She emphasized they would not request a telephonic hearing for
serious issues.
9:34:57 AM
MS. ANNE CARPENETI, Department of Law (DOL), commented a motion
hearing is not specified in SB 154 as a proceeding where the
juvenile has to be present. Paragraph 3 of the rule provides
that appearance by television is not allowed under any
circumstances in a proceeding where sworn testimony is
presented. A motion hearing would be supported by testimonial
evidence. She said that might need to be added into Paragraph 1.
SENATOR FRENCH moved Amendment 1.
Page 7, line 6; after the word "television" add the words
"or telephone."
Hearing no objections, the motion carried.
9:36:52 AM
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT asked Ms. Ware the number of cases SB
154 would apply.
MS. WARE answered she would get back to the committee with the
information.
9:38:56 AM
MS. LINDA WILSON, deputy director, Alaska Public Defender
Agency, testified she is quite familiar with this area of law
and offered to answer questions. She guessed there would be a
large number of cases that would fall under SB 154.
9:43:12 AM
MS. WILSON expressed concern over telephonic participation of a
juvenile. Juveniles often don't understand what is happening to
them. She said they need their attorney present and they have a
right to have them present during hearings because the hearings
are critical and address liberty. She disputed the zero fiscal
notes saying the cost will shift to another agency, such as
public defender travel costs. The attorney, the client, and the
judge being in the same room create a far greater impact.
9:45:12 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Wilson whether she would travel to
be next to her client, no matter how brief the hearing was
anticipated to be.
MS. WILSON responded not in every case. Allowing the juvenile
the right to waive presence at a hearing is appropriate.
Allowing the Department of Law the right to exclude the juvenile
is worrisome.
SENATOR FRENCH asked whether most contested hearings involve
sworn testimony.
MS. WILSON answered sometimes detention review hearings can be
contested but not necessarily evidentiary.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked committee members to consider zeroing
out the indeterminate fiscal note. He asked Ms. Ware to comment.
9:48:18 AM
MS. WARE remarked the proposed changes are addressing the types
of hearings where a public defender would not travel.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether there existed an electronic method
where the juvenile and the attorney could communicate on a
secure line.
MS. WARE said due to the size and remoteness of Alaska, many
times the primary communication is telephonic.
SENATOR THERRIAULT offered the hearing could be recessed so the
juvenile and attorney could communicate through another phone
line.
9:50:39 AM
MS. WILSON advised there is often not another phone line. Many
times juveniles won't interrupt a proceeding to ask a question.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether the attorneys properly communicate
with the client to make sure they understand that they can ask
questions.
MS. WILSON stated sometimes they don't remember. She maintained
it is important for the attorney to be physically present in
order to initiate breaks to explain things and answer questions.
9:52:36 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Ms. Wilson the most substantive type
hearing where she felt SB 154 would prevent attendance by the
juvenile.
MS. WILSON divulged it would be the detention review hearings,
which is similar to a bail hearing.
MS. WARE agreed every court hearing is important. SB 154 is an
attempt to propose an option for the judge to consider the
cost/benefit analysis.
9:56:09 AM
MS. CARPENETI added the rule provides the judge is the entity
who decides whether the person needs to be there. The DOL and
the DOC are not excluding the child; they are asking the judge
to decide whether it is essential for the child to be physically
present.
SENATOR FRENCH articulated the closer the call, the more likely
the judge would make sure all parties are in the same room.
MS. WARE agreed.
9:57:31 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS closed public testimony.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved the Senate Standing Judiciary Committee
draft a zero fiscal note for the office of public defender.
Hearing no objections, the motion carried.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved CSSB 154(JUD) from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). There
being no objection, the motion carried.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|