Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
04/12/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB210 | |
| HB355 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 355 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 210 - CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN/SUPPORT/CINA
1:43:57 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the first order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 210(FIN), "An Act relating to
crimes against children; and providing for an effective date."
[Left pending from the hearing on 4/11/12 was the motion to
adopt a proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for CSSB
210(FIN), Version 27-LS1362\O, Wayne, 4/10/12, as the work
draft.]
1:44:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt a new proposed House
committee substitute (HCS) for CSSB 210(FIN), Version LS-1362\U,
Wayne, 4/12/12, as the working document.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON objected for discussion purposes.
1:44:50 PM
AMY SALTZMAN, Staff, Senator Lesil McGuire, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor of SB 210, Senator
McGuire, explained that no change had been made to Section 1,
and mentioned that there would be a forthcoming change to
Section 2.
1:46:59 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), concurred
that no changes had been made to Section 1. She then discussed
changes that would affect Section 2. She indicated that adopted
into Alaska's assault law, AS 11.41.255, there would be an
addition to the definition of "serious physical injury" to
address victims that are under 12 years of age whose injuries
result in serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health by
extensive bruising or other injury that would cause a reasonable
person to seek medical attention for the child from a health
professional in the form of diagnosis or treatment, or serious
impediment of blood circulation or breathing.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that the new section in AS
11.41.255 would apply only to the term "serious physical injury"
in AS 11.41.200-250.
MS. CARPENETI explained that the rationale for the change was
that although children can be seriously injured, their injuries
may not be prolonged as they would be for an adult.
MS. CARPENETI directed attention to Section 2 of Version O, and
highlighted the proposed language: "(4) recklessly fails to
provide adequate food or liquids to a child, causing protracted
impairment of the child's health." She explained that under
Version U, the words "quantity of" would be inserted between
"adequate" and "food" to clarify that the provision would not
apply to parents who may not be in the position to feed their
children healthful food. She said Section 4 of Version O would
be eliminated from Version U, because of the addition already
mentioned in Section 2, and Section 4 of Version O would not be
in Version U. She stated that Sections 5-12 are unchanged.
1:51:59 PM
MS. CARPENETI said that subsection (i), in Section 13, of
Version O has been removed, but the language in subsection (j)
remains [now subsection (i), in Section 14]. She said Sections
14-18 of Version O were unchanged [now Sections 15-19 of Version
U].
1:53:12 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON removed his objection to the previous motion
made to adopt a new proposed House committee substitute (HCS)
for CSSB 210(FIN), Version LS-1362\U, Wayne, 4/12/12, as the
working document. There being no further objection, Version U
was before the committee.
1:53:55 PM
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Representative Keller, said the
term, "fact finder", in Section 6, page 4, line 24, is used in
other places in the proposed bill language. She said it is a
term used to include a jury or a judge, depending on the
situation. In response to a follow-up question, she emphasized
that the definition of "fact finder" is clear to practitioners
who would be using the sections of language in which the term is
found.
1:55:35 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, having earlier noted that Version U
contained handwritten suggestions for change, made a motion to
adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, which incorporates those
handwritten changes as follows: on page 2, line 31, changing
the heading; on page 3, lines 1-3, deleting the language; on
page 3, lines 4-5, adding language; on page 3, line 6, deleting
part of the language; and on page 4, lines 5-22, deleting
Section 5.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
MS. CARPENETI explained that a working group had discussed the
expansion of the definition of "serious physical injury" being a
big change to Alaska law, because the current definition has
been in statute since its application in 1978. She said the
group concluded that it would be best to limit the definition to
crimes of assault in the first, second, third, and fourth
degrees, and reckless endangerment.
1:57:36 PM
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a request from Vice Chair
Thompson, read the language of Conceptual Amendment 1, which
read in Version U, with the handwritten changes, as follows:
*Sec.2. AS 11.41 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
Sec. 11.31.255. Definitions. In AS
11.41.200-11.41.250, "serious physical injury", in
addition to the definition in AS 11.81.900(b), if the
victim is under 12 years of age includes the
following:
(1) serious disfigurement;
(2) serious impairment of health by
extensive by extensive bruising or other injury that
would cause a reasonable person to seek medical
attention for the child from a health care
professional in the form of diagnosis or treatment; or
(3) impediment of blood circulation or
breathing.
1:58:40 PM
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Representative Hawker, confirmed
that she had added the word "serious", preceding "impediment of
blood circulation or breathing", on page 3, line 9, paragraph
(3). She explained that the work group had agreed upon the need
to add "serious" before "impediment", but had not written it
down.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON said the committee needed to add "serious"
on line 9.
1:59:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked if subsection (b), on page 3, line
10, should remain in the bill.
MS. CARPENETI indicated that subsection (b) should have been
removed.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced, "And so, the conceptual amendment
is corrected."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said, "Clarified."
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON responded, "Yeah, clarified."
1:59:37 PM
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said AS
11.81.900(b) contains the definitions that apply to all of Title
11.
2:03:25 PM
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said the
intent is for the definitions [relating to "serious
disfigurement" in children under the age of 12] to be an
addition to the definitions found in AS 11.81.900(b)(56), so
that it would be clear that "serious disfigurement" would apply
to a victim under 12 years of age, whereas a victim over that
age would fall under "serious and protracted disfigurement".
She reiterated that children heal faster.
2:04:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether there is language addressing
the abuse of children whose parents tie them up.
MS. CARPENETI said Section 3 talks about the endangering of a
child. In response to a follow-up question, she offered her
understanding that the situation described by Representative
Lynn would be considered an assault.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG ventured that a child who has been tied
up may not incur physical injury, but may suffer mental injury.
He suggested an amendment could be made to Conceptual Amendment
1, to add "physical or mental" before "health".
2:06:57 PM
MS. CARPENETI said such conduct is already covered under
Alaska's kidnapping statutes. In response to a question, she
confirmed that a parent can kidnap his/her own child.
2:08:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to the motion to
adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, [as amended]. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1, [as amended], was
adopted.
2:08:56 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, as follows:
Page 8, line 24:
Delete "HUMAN TRAFFICKING TASK FORCE"
Insert "HUMAN TRAFFICKING/PROMOTING PROSTITUTION
(SEX TRAFFICKING) TASK FORCE"
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected.
2:10:10 PM
MS. CARPENETI said her boss suggested that since human
trafficking provisions and promoting prostitution provisions are
similar statutes, it would be helpful to law enforcement and the
DOL to have a study that includes both. She relayed that
yesterday the House passed a bill that changed the term
"promoting prostitution" to "sex trafficking", and explained
that because the law still uses the term "promoting
prostitution", both terms are included in Conceptual Amendment
2.
2:11:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:12:17 PM
MS. CARPENETI, regarding the task force language of Section 19,
expressed her hope that the committee would direct the
Legislative Affairs Agency to change all references to the term
"human trafficking" to "human trafficking and promoting
prostitution". She recommended that language could be added to
Conceptual Amendment 2 to that effect.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON pointed out that Conceptual Amendment 2 had
already been adopted.
2:13:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER recommended that Vice Chair Thompson state
clearly for the record that the intent inherent in Conceptual
Amendment 2 was that those specific words be conformed
throughout Section 19.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that that wording has to be used
consistently throughout Section 19, and that Conceptual
Amendment 2 is the vehicle by which to make that happen.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to Section 20, on
page 10, line 1, and offered his understanding that it is no
longer accurate in mentioning Section 19 and would have to be
renumbered.
2:14:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that a disagreement between the DOL
and the PDA concerning Sections 10 and 11, on page 5, lines 25,
through page 6, line 6, was still unsettled.
2:16:22 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), said that the
conceptual amendments seem consistent with discussions.
Regarding Sections 10 and 11, he said under current law the full
amount of suspended time of a sentence can be shortened, but
[Sections 10 and 11 of Version U] raise some concern about "the
possibility of this becoming an unreviewable sentence imposition
in the sense that sentence time is not subject to appeal until
it's imposed, and in this case the imposition of it would be
statutorily required." He confirmed that was the topic on which
the DOL and the PDA were unable to reach common ground.
2:18:36 PM
JOSHUA DECKER, Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union of
Alaska (ACLU of Alaska), said that Jeffrey Mittman, the
executive director of ACLU of Alaska had submitted written
testimony to the committee yesterday. He said while ACLU thinks
the changes in Version U are an improvement, it still has
concern that modifying the definition of "serious physical
injury" - even just within the assault statutes - will result in
a lack of clarity under Alaska law rather than simply enacting a
new offense designed to address the committee's concern about
serious physical injury of minors. He said ACLU encourages the
committee to adopt a new offense specifically and narrowly
tailored to that concern.
2:19:58 PM
RICHARD SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General, Central Office,
Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said Section 10
addresses conforming changes related to Section 11. He said
Section 11 is his focus. He related that 33 or his 35 years in
law have been spent as a prosecutor. He said prosecutors try to
set goals, do justice, be fair, and protect the community. He
said he thinks Section 11 is germane to those goals; it is the
"a deal is a deal" section, where all the parties have come to
an agreement. Mr. Svobodny said typically, in 95 percent of
cases, the person on probation messes up by committing another
crime, drinking, or not going to mental health counseling
ordered by the court, for example. A petition to revoke
probation is filed by a probation officer. In a case where
there is a two-year suspended sentence, the prosecutor may
recommend that the person be given a year and the defense may
ask for six months or no jail time. Mr. Svobodny said the final
decision is up to the judge, but it is not doing justice to
break the original agreement and do away with all the originally
agreed upon suspended time.
MR. SVOBODNY said when he was involved in plea negotiations he
would consider a case in terms of protecting the victim and the
public. He said five years with one suspended may be better
than two years with no suspension, because the person would have
the supervision of a probation officer and if the person breaks
his/her parole, another jury trial is not necessary, there just
needs to be proof to the court by a preponderance of the
evidence, from which the judge can figure out what is right for
the situation. He opined that the decisions made in the last
year have violated the principles of fairness, justice, and
protecting the community.
MR. SVOBODNY said often the period and length of probation is
determined based upon getting the victim paid. If a judge
terminates [the original agreement] because the person has
violated the terms of probation, then the victim will have to go
through civil court for restitution. He stated that when
everything has been bargained for up front, the person who
violates his/her probation should not be rewarded. He opined
that Section 11 is good public policy.
2:29:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she is questioning who should take
the lead in terms of probation revocation and proceedings and
whether the judge should have more or less flexibility. She
said it seems that tying the hands of the judge by saying that
he/she cannot make decisions unless both sides agree gives a lot
of power to the prosecutor. She related that because the issue
is complex, her recommendation would be to remove [Sections 10
and 11] and address the issue further during the interim.
MR. SVOBODNY clarified that no one is trying to tie the judge's
hands with regard to whether or not to impose suspended time.
Using his previous example of two years' time or five years'
time with four years suspended, he said the judge would still
have the discretion to impose from nothing to up to two years in
jail - whatever he/she deems is appropriate within, but not less
than, the originally bargained for range.
2:34:52 PM
MR. SVOBODNY, in response to Representative Lynn, reiterated
that he supports Section 11. With regard to the concern
expressed by Mr. Steiner that [Sections 10 and 11] would limit a
defendant's right to appeal a sentence, he pointed out that
there are specific provisions of Alaska law addressing the
appeal of sentences, and those laws are not being amended.
2:35:51 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, after ascertaining that no one else wished
to testify, closed public testimony on SB 210.
2:36:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES relayed that she still wasn't comfortable
with Sections 10 and 11 of SB 210, but was not at this time
going to make a motion to delete them.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON said he would like Sections 10 and 11 to
remain in the bill.
2:36:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report the proposed HCS for CSSB
210(FIN), Version 27-LS1362\U, Wayne, 4/12/12, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB
210(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 CSHB 355 (STA) version I.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/10/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 355 |
| HCS CSSB210 ver O.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 210 |
| 02 HB 355 Sponsor Statement -- FINAL.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/10/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 355 |
| 03 HB 355 - Sectional Analysis -- FINAL.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/10/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 355 |
| 04 HB 355 explanation of changes to CSHB 355.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/10/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 355 |
| 05 HB355-DOA-APOC-4-9-12.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/10/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 355 |
| CSHB 355 (STA) Amendment for HJUD.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 355 |
| HB 355 Legislative Legal Memo.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 355 |
| HB 355 Regulation.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 355 |
| HB 355 Statute.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 355 |
| HB 355 APOC.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 355 |
| HCS CSSB210 ver U.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 210 |
| HCS CSSB 210 (JUD) version U Memo.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 210 |
| CS for SB 210 (JUD) Amendment for Version U.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 210 |