Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
03/09/2022 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 | |
| SB187 | |
| SB189 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 189 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 189-CRIME OF SEX/HUMAN TRAFFICKING
2:04:40 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 189
"An Act relating to sex trafficking; establishing the crime of
patron of a victim of sex trafficking; relating to the crime of
human trafficking; relating to sentencing for sex trafficking
and patron of a victim of sex trafficking; establishing the
process for a vacatur of judgment for a conviction of
prostitution; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR HOLLAND noted that the committee was preparing a committee
substitute, but it was not ready.
2:05:04 PM
SENATOR MYERS directed attention to a potential discrepancy in
the language on page 5, lines 2-6, and the language on page 21,
lines 15-18, related to the presumption and burden of proof in
vacatur of judgment of conviction for prostitution proceedings.
He interpreted this language to mean that the person should not
be charged as a prostitute because the person was a victim of
sex trafficking. He agreed with the policy but expressed concern
that the person must prove that they were a victim to get the
conviction vacated. He acknowledged that it was the lowest level
of proof, a preponderance of the evidence, but it seemed uneven.
He stated that a person could say they were a victim and not
need to provide proof, but the person claiming to be a victim
must prove it to vacate the conviction.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that those two sections address
different things. The language that speaks to "corroboration of
certain testimony not required" relates to prosecuting someone
for sex trafficking, but this statute applies to all offenses.
The department doesn't need to bring in substantial evidence to
corroborate. She acknowledged it probably wasn't a good idea to
place that language in statute, and she was unsure why the
legislature adopted it. However, this is current law, and SB 189
merely relocates the statute.
MS. SCHROEDER stated that this relates to proving something
beyond a reasonable doubt. She did not think that the victim
providing testimony that they were sex trafficked without
providing corroborating evidence was likely to succeed. Nothing
would prevent the state from attempting to do so, and nothing
says a specific quantum is necessary. However, the state does
screen cases by looking for corroborating evidence to meet the
high bar. In terms of vacating a judgment, the person can prove
it with solely their testimony, but they must meet the
preponderance of the evidence standard. If the person presents a
compelling and credible case, the judge could make a finding to
overturn their conviction. However, nothing requires the person
to bring in lots of evidence to get their conviction vacated
either.
2:08:36 PM
SENATOR MYERS commented that it still seems like a mismatch from
the victim's perspective. He said, "On the one hand, if I say it
earlier, I don't have to prove anything, but if I say it later,
then I have to prove it." He suggested that the timing concerns
him because if something is true, it doesn't depend on when the
person said it.
MS. SCHROEDER replied that it is not the victim in the sex
trafficking case who has to prove it. The state must prove the
crime, so it will look for corroborating evidence because it
must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. She indicated that it
would be challenging to achieve that standard without any
corroborating evidence. She stated that vacating a judgment
requires a preponderance of the evidence. The victim could tell
their story in the prosecution case to vacate the conviction and
bring in whatever evidence they choose. She reiterated that the
onus is not on the victim, but on the state. She highlighted
that one matter is a criminal case, and the other is a civil
action.
2:10:38 PM
SENATOR MYERS said Ms. Schroeder got to the heart of the matter
by clarifying that the burden is on the state in one case, and
in the other, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove
their innocence. He offered his belief that from the victim's
perspective, the standard of proof should be the same.
MS. SCHROEDER referred to the corroboration section, which
speaks to the victim's testimony. Again, the burden of proof is
on the state to prove it. The person stating that they had been
a victim of sex trafficking does not have to prove anything. The
state is prosecuting the sex trafficker, not the victim. This
corroboration section of the bill states that the prosecutor can
call the victim in as a witness without further corroborating
evidence, which the prosecutor would not likely ever do. The
other instance would be a civil hearing to vacate a judgment,
where the petitioner would need to prove something to the court
via their statement or something else. She highlighted that the
burden of proof for civil cases is the preponderance of the
evidence, whereas it would be beyond a reasonable doubt for the
criminal case.
2:12:57 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he would pursue this with the Department of
Law at a later time.
2:13:08 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that there was some confusion at a previous
hearing on Section 22, on page 17, on the lookback timeframe. He
asked Ms. Schroeder if the 72-hour imprisonment for a person
previously convicted of buying a sex act would be once in
eternity or once in a set period of years.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that there was not a lookback period for
the misdemeanor level so it could be at any point. She added
that Title 11 does have some misdemeanors with lookbacks and
others without them. She deferred to the committee to decide
whether to add a lookback. She noted that the lookback in that
section regarding enhanced penalties for patrons is five years
for a felony. She said the sentence could increase to a felony
if someone accrued convictions at a fairly rapid rate.
2:14:51 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 189 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS for SB 187 (SJUD).pdf |
SJUD 3/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 187 |