Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/22/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 151 PAYMENT BY INDIGENTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES Number 034 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, noted that HB 151 had been introduced by the House Judiciary Committee, at the request of the Supreme Court. He said that under the state and U.S. constitutions, a criminal defendant had the right to an attorney. If the defendant could not afford an attorney, one had to be provided to him by the state, he added. MR. CHRISTENSEN commented that up until 1990, courts could order indigent defendants to pay for their defense services, to the extent that the defendant could afford to pay. He said that for a variety of reasons that law was ineffective. One main reason that the law was ineffective, he said, was that it addressed a defendant's current ability to pay for defense costs and not his or her future ability. MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that in 1990, the legislature amended the law to allow civil judgments to be brought against defendants who had been represented by public defenders without taking into consideration the defendant's current ability to pay. If a defendant became solvent at a later date, he said, the judgment could then be enforced. However, if the defendant did not become solvent at a later date, the judgment would not be enforced. MR. CHRISTENSEN stated that the legislature also amended the law in 1990 to prohibit civil judgments against defendants who were not actually convicted and to prohibit execution on a judgment for three years after a defendant was released from incarceration. He said HB 151 proposed to change these two amendments made by the legislature in 1990. He said HB 151 would allow judgments to be entered against defendants who had been represented by public defenders, whether or not the defendant was convicted. He stated that the philosophy behind this change was that because non-indigent defendants had to pay for their defense costs, whether or not they were convicted, indigent defendants should be treated the same way. MR. CHRISTENSEN said HB 151 would also eliminate the three year moratorium on repayment that currently followed incarceration. He noted that the moratorium made it substantially more difficult for the state to recover defense costs in a timely manner. (Rep. James arrived.) Number 137 REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Christensen how many people would be affected by HB 151. Number 144 MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that Marilyn May could better address her question. He said that he did know that in the six months since the adoption of a court rule on the same subject, approximately 1,000 judgments totally about $200,000 had been entered against indigent defendants. However, he commented that only about $17,000 had been collected by the Attorney General. He called the members' attention to a copy of Criminal Rule 39, which set forth the charges made to indigent defendants for legal services. Number 165 MARILYN MAY, of the ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She commented that she was the attorney for the Collections Unit, and received judgments entered under Criminal Rule 39. She noted that the rule had only been in effect since the beginning of the fiscal year. She said that about 1,200 judgments, worth approximately $240,000, had been entered. Of those, she added, 123 had been paid, netting the state $21,000. MS. MAY stated that her office expected to receive 5,000 judgments per year, worth over $1 million. She commented that current law hampered the Collection Unit's ability to collect on judgments. Number 224 REP. PHILLIPS asked Ms. May to explain how the fee schedule in Rule 39 was developed. She commented that the fees were ridiculously low. Number 231 MS. MAY replied that a committee, including representatives from the Public Defender's Office, the Office of Public Advocacy, the Court System and the Attorney General's Office, had come up with the fee schedule. She said that the intent of the committee was to determine a fee that an indigent person would be able to pay that would help defray the cost of the counsel. Number 250 REP. PHILLIPS noted that what might be fair to an indigent defendant certainly was not fair to the state. She said that she found the fee schedule to be completely out of line. Number 257 MS. MAY said that the committee considered the fact that in some cases very little work was involved. Number 273 REP. NORDLUND expressed concern that judgments would be filed against indigent defendants who were found not guilty. He asked if court-assigned attorneys were mandatory. (Rep. Davidson arrived.) Number 290 MR. CHRISTENSEN responded that, in his understanding, defendants were asked whether or not they wanted an attorney. He said that if a case actually went to trial, the court might be able to impose an attorney on a defendant under certain circumstances. Number 300 REP. NORDLUND asked if judges assessed a defendant's capability of defending himself or herself. Number 302 MR. CHRISTENSEN said that he believed that such an assessment was made. REP. NORDLUND noted his concern that an indigent defendant might be involuntarily assigned an attorney, be found not guilty, and have to pay for legal costs. Number 318 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the standard for finding a defendant guilty was very high. He said that the fact that a person was not convicted did not establish innocence. He added that he could not think of any situations like the one that Rep. Nordlund had described. Number 339 REP. NORDLUND stated that if he were charged with a crime that he was completely innocent of, and was asked if he wanted to pay for an attorney, he would probably elect to not have a court-appointed attorney. He said that innocent people were sometimes accused of crimes. He added that he thought that HB 151 would be unfair to some defendants. Number 355 REP. PHILLIPS made a motion to move HB 151 out of committee, with individual recommendations. Number 358 REP. DAVIDSON objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Porter, Phillips, James, and Kott voted "yea"; Representatives Davidson and Nordlund voted "nay." And so, HB 151 moved out of the Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. Number 370 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 120, Jury List Preparation, was the next item of business before the committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|