02/26/1993 12:00 PM House JUD

  HB 64 - ANTI-STALKING LAW                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 364                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI outlined the changes that had been made in the                  
  new committee substitute for HB 64.  She noted that the most                 
  recent committee substitute was dated 2/26/93.  She said                     
  that the title of the bill had been changed to reflect                       
  changes made in the body of the bill.  She stated that new                   
  language appeared on page 2, line 26, of the committee                       
  substitute.  A technical change had been made, she                           
  indicated, to make the language less wordy.                                  
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI pointed out additional new language on page 2,                  
  line 6.  At the request of the committee, the altered                        
  language provided that a stalker who possessed a deadly                      
  weapon would be guilty of a felony rather than a                             
  misdemeanor.  At the bottom of page 2 and continuing on to                   
  page 3, Ms. Horetski noted the expanded definition of                        
  "family member."  She indicated that the new language added                  
  "uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece" to other family members                      
  already mentioned.  She noted that the language had been                     
  taken from elsewhere in existing law.                                        
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to page 3, lines                  
  4 and 5, where former spouses and past or present romantic                   
  partners were also added to the definition of "family                        
  member."  She noted that the language changes regarding                      
  family members were an effort to include anyone who                          
  conceivably might be the target of a stalker.                                
                                                                               
  Number 445                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND asked if all of the language changes were                      
  really necessary.                                                            
                                                                               
  Number 448                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI called Rep. Nordlund's attention to the                         
  elements of stalking on page 2, line 21.  She said that a                    
  person committed the crime of stalking if that person                        
  knowingly engaged in a course of conduct that placed another                 
  person in fear for themselves or in fear of death or                         
  physical injury to a family member.  She gave an example of                  
  a woman breaking up with her boyfriend, and the boyfriend                    
  making threats toward her child; which would be a form of                    
  stalking.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 456                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND asked if in that instance the stalker would be                 
  stalking another individual (the child) and not the child's                  
  mother.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 458                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified the point by saying that if the                    
  action were directed at the child, then the child would be                   
  the victim.  However, in other instances, the action was                     
  directed at a mother by making threats toward her child.                     
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI pointed out a change on page 4, lines 3 and 4,                  
  which she said was an alteration to the assault statutes,                    
  not the stalking law.  She said section 3 was also new,                      
  describing what "family member" meant, in the assault                        
  statutes.  This was a technical amendment, she noted.                        
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI pointed out that language on page 4, lines 23                   
  to 26, was being moved to another section of the bill, on                    
  page 4, lines 3 to 5.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 485                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that there was a relationship                      
  between the crimes of stalking, assault, and terroristic                     
  threatening.  He said the changes that Ms. Horetski was                      
  delineating were an attempt to make the elements of all                      
  three of the crimes logical and consistent with each other.                  
                                                                               
  Number 494                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI said that on the last page of the bill, section                 
  8, there was a change to the maximum allowable probationary                  
  period, extending it for all crimes from five to up to ten                   
  years.  Earlier versions of the bill had only changed the                    
  maximum probationary period for the crime of stalking, she                   
  said, and not for other crimes.                                              
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI stated that there was new language in the                       
  applicability section stating that criminal convictions                      
  which occurred before the effective date of HB 64 would be                   
  considered "previous convictions" under the bill.  She said                  
  an immediate effective date had been added to the bill, in                   
  section 11.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 516                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT mentioned a Senate bill which extended the period                  
  of probation from five to ten years.  He said that if he                     
  were opposed to the Senate bill, he would also be opposed to                 
  HB 64.  He stated that a recent report had indicated that                    
  the majority of new correctional system clients were in the                  
  system due to probation violations.  He added that he was                    
  not sure if he would be willing to extend probation to ten                   
  years for every crime.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 540                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Rep. Kott had brought up a                        
  legitimate point.  He emphasized that the provision in the                   
  original bill extended the potential probation period to 99                  
  years.  He noted that the idea behind that provision was                     
  that there were people who fell into patterns of committing                  
  this type of crime who needed to be deterred from committing                 
  the same type of crime once released from incarceration.                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said the Department of Law found the 99-year                 
  probation period difficult to justify for stalking, in light                 
  of the fact that other severe crimes had shorter maximum                     
  probation periods.  He said that in that light, it was                       
  decided to change the maximum period of probation from 99                    
  years to ten years, and to extend the change to all crimes.                  
                                                                               
  Number 595                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked if the title of HB 64 were tight enough.                 
                                                                               
  Number 602                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI replied that the title was accurate, but could                  
  be tightened.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 610                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS said that the title seemed all right to her,                   
  but she had wanted to raise the issue.                                       
                                                                               
  Number 614                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he did not anticipate the                     
  bill experiencing any problems in the Senate, as a result of                 
  a non-restrictive title.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 621                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT asked if the Department of Corrections had                         
  submitted a more recent fiscal note than the one dated                       
  February 19.                                                                 
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS commented that the committee should alert the                  
  Finance Committee that the Department of Corrections needed                  
  to submit another fiscal note.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 651                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the Finance Committee would be an                  
  appropriate place to discuss the Department of Corrections'                  
  fiscal note.  He suggested that HB 64 be held until the                      
  Department of Corrections could address its fiscal note.                     
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND indicated that he had to leave.                                
                                                                               
  Number 661                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS moved to pass CSHB 64 out of the Judiciary                     
  Committee with individual recommendations, and that the                      
  committee request that the Department of Corrections submit                  
  an amended fiscal note to the Finance Committee.  She noted                  
  that the second part of her motion could be included in a                    
  letter of intent.                                                            
                                                                               
  Number 671                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, ordered that CSHB 64                  
  (JUD) be moved out of committee with individual                              
  recommendations.                                                             
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 100 was the next item of                   
  business before the committee.