Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/03/1993 01:30 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL 43
"An Act relating to the crime of conspiracy."
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER testified in support of HB 43.
3
The proposed legislation creates a new crime of "conspiracy"
in State law. An offender commits the crime if:
* With intent to commit a "serious felon offense";
* The offender agrees with one or more to commit the
offense;
* The offender or one of the others perform an overt
act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
He stated that the adoption of the bill would provide Alaska
law enforcement officers and prosecutors with a valuable
tool which is available to law enforcement authorities in
the federal system and in most other states. If sufficient
evidence of a conspiracy is obtained, charges may be filed
and arrests made before the conspirators actually commit the
underlying planned serious felon offense.
Representative Porter added, in addition to allowing the
apprehension of offenders at an earlier stage of the planned
crime, the adoption of a conspiracy law would permit the
introduction of additional evidence in a trial. Thus, the
jury would be permitted to hear, for example, more evidence
about the overall drug operation, rather than being limited
to evidence about specific drug sales on specific dates.
The jury therefore would not view the sales in isolation,
but would see the "big picture".
In cases where the underlying offense was actually
committed, defendants charged both with conspiracy and
another crime may be more likely to cooperate with the
prosecution in an effort to obtain a reduced charge; this
may reduce the number of trials. Another potential cost-
savings is that multiple defendants charged with conspiracy
will be able to be tried jointly, rather than in separate
trials as is generally required.
(Tape Change, HFC 93 -36, Side 2).
Representative Porter pointed out the Letter of Intent
provided by the House Judiciary Committee. He thought the
fiscal notes by the Department of Administration were
questionable.
Co-Chair MacLean asked for an explanation of an "overt act".
Representative Porter stated there are definitions
throughout other states although Alaska has not defined it
to date. He provided the Committee with examples of "overt"
crimes.
Co-Chair MacLean questioned if a conspiracy was taking place
4
over the telephone, at which location would the crime be
charged and a hearing determined. Representative Porter
deferred the question to the Department of Law. He added it
would not be a federal offense unless it was made over a
state line. Co-Chair MacLean disagreed with the fiscal
impact of the bill.
Representative Hoffman stressed the expense of the proposed
fiscal notes when currently, rural Alaska is experiencing
insufficient representation due to limited public defenders
and judges. Representative Porter acknowledged that there
are problems existing in the rural areas and reemphasized
his concern with the proposed fiscal impact. The court
system in Alaska has not had experience in criminal trials.
Representative Brown questioned how the proposed legislation
would differ from other laws specifically A.S. 11.31.10,
11.16.10, 11.31.100. Representative Porter stated that
there are solicitation and attempt crimes currently on the
books and explained the difference between solicitation and
conspiracy. Conspiracy fills a small and important gap
particularly in drug crimes.
Representative Brown asked if a person has a conversation
with someone else regarding a crime to be committed, but
does not commit the crime, could they be charged with that
crime. Representative Porter replied, they could, if an
overt act was the result of the conspiracy. Representative
Brown asked the involvement of a person unaware of the
criminal nature of the crime. Representative Porter stated
that a crime of conspiracy does not occur with just a
conversation, there must be at least one overt act before
the offense occurs. Discussion followed regarding at which
point a person would become guilty of an "overt" act.
BRANT MCGHEE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY (OPA),
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, testified via teleconference. He
clarified that the Office of Public Advocacy does not
believe that the passage of the laws which recriminalize the
use and possession of marijuana would lead to an onslaught
of criminal cases. He pointed out that the fiscal note does
not reflect an increase in case levels.
The reasons for increased costs to the Office of Public
Advocacy are three fold:
* These are serious felony cases. Many hours will
be involved in preparation for trial.
* There will be multiple co-defendants. OPA is
responsible for representing people with whom the
public defender agency has a conflict of interest.
5
* Joint trialsaccrue greater trialcosts by
prosecutingpeopleperipherallyinvolved.Joint
trialsarerequiredandthesetrialsarelengthy.
Mr. McGhee pointed out that there are federal conspiracy and
federal drug laws in existence, both of which are used in
Alaska. He questioned why the State is volunteering to
undertake the responsibility of these costs.
Representative Grussendorf interjected that he did not think
the zero fiscal notes submitted by the Department of Law and
the Department of Public Safety were reasonable.
Co-Chair MacLean asked the difference between a conspiracy
and being an accomplice.
DEAN J. GUANELI, CHIEF, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, explained the different ways to
commit offenses under criminal law. The conspiracy bill
addresses conduct which does not go as far as aiding and
assisting crime. The bill addresses the agreement between
two people to commit a crime. Current Alaska law does cover
some of these events, although, he pointed out that there
are situations which can not be addressed without proposed
legislation.
Mr. Guaneli defined an "overt" act as something to be done
in furtherance of a conspiracy. He pointed out that there
is a definition included in the Senate version of the bill:
"'Overt act' furthers conspiracy, an act of such character
that it manifests the purpose on the part of the actor that
the object of the conspiracy be completed."
(Tape Change, HFC 93-37, Side 2).
Representative Grussendorf reiterated his concern with the
zero fiscal note provided by the Department of Law. Mr.
Guaneli stated it would be possible to tie some of the cases
together so that one conspiracy case can go to joint trial
under the rules of evidence. He added that this type of
legislation allows the jury to consider more evidence from
the background of the criminal organization which becomes
directly relevant to the conspiracy charge. This allows the
prosecution to put together a stronger case against criminal
organizations.
HB 43 was placed in a subcommittee with Representative
Hanley as Chair and with members Representative Hoffman and
Representative Parnell. The bill was HELD in Committee for
further discussion. k#hb69
6
HOUSE BILL 69
"An Act relating to registration of and information
about sex offenders and amending Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure 11(c) and 32(b)."
DOUG WOOLIVER, ATTORNEY, AIDE TO REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA
BARNES, testified in support of HB 69. The proposed
legislation would require all persons who are present in
Alaska and have been convicted of sex crimes in Alaska or
any other state to register with the Alaska State Troopers.
For a period of years, they must provide the Troopers with
updated information including their places of residence and
employment.
He added that by improving the access to information
regarding sex offenders that reside in Alaska, HB 69 will
better enable employers, volunteer coordinators and others
to effectively screen those who may work around children or
in any other position where people may be vulnerable. This
is important because not only do sex offenders tend to have
multiple victims, but they also frequently repeat their
crimes even after serving time in prison. By being required
to register, sex offenders may not only be less likely to
commit such crimes again, but if they do, law enforcement
personnel will have a better chance of identifying them as
well as a better idea of where to find them.
Representative Martin questioned the amount spent by the
State to rehabilitation sex offenders. He felt that the
proposed legislation would be discriminatory to individuals
once convicted of a sex offense. Mr. Wooliver noted that it
is questionable if rehabilitation can be effective for this
type of crime. Representative Parnell pointed out the
registration period would last between ten and twenty-five
years.
C. E. SWACKHAMMER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY (DPS), explained that the fiscal note submitted by
DPS was based upon the need of one person assimilating the
data information required and making computer entries. It
also includes advertising costs.
Representative Brown questioned the DNA type blood analysis.
Mr. Swackhammer stated that DNA testing is comparable to
finger printing. The cost and technology make
implementation of this program prohibitive. Representative
Brown pointed out her concerns with the DNA analysis and the
confidentiality of that information. She asked that any
redrafting of the legislation include scrutiny of DNA
analysis and confidentiality of records. Discussion
followed regarding insurance complications and
7
discrimination. Representative Brown concluded with two
concerns:
* It is unreasonable to assume that DPS could code,
test, document and do applications for the
requested fiscal note of $4 thousand dollars;
* Fiscal note did not include persons in the rural
areas. She felt that this was unequal application
of the law.
Mr. Swackhammer reminded Committee members that twenty-five
percent of the Alaska jail population are sex offenders.
This is one of the highest rates in the nation. One
offender can affect as many as twenty-five or more lives.
He added that the public deserves the right to protection.
He emphasized that reasonable efforts must be made to try to
provide that protection.
Co-Chair Larson placed HB 69 in a subcommittee with
Representative Therriault as Chair and with members
Representative Brown and Representative Martin. HB 69 was
HELD in Committee for further discussion.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|