Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/06/2004 03:20 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 54 - ASSAULT ON SCHOOL EMPLOYEES Number 2259 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 54, "An Act relating to the crime of assault." Number 2242 REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SSHB 54, said that current law imposes penalties on persons who assault law enforcement officers, firefighters, correctional officers, and emergency medical technicians, ambulance attendants, paramedics, and other emergency responders. The bill proposes to add school employees to the list of persons for which someone may be penalized for assaulting. He mentioned that SSHB 54 has been recommended as priority legislation by the Anchorage School District (ASD). As a former employee in many of the aforementioned fields, he said he could relate to the need for this legislation. If teachers are to keep children safe, he opined, the least that the legislature can do is help protect teachers and other school employees. He noted that members' packets include a letter of support from the National Education Association (NEA) - Alaska. In conclusion, he asked members to support SSHB 54. CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to a question, read the statute referenced in SSHB 54 on page 1, lines 11-13, and on page 2, lines 2-4 - AS 11.41.230: Sec. 11.41.230. Assault in the fourth degree. (a) A person commits the crime of assault in the fourth degree if (1) that person recklessly causes physical injury to another person; (2) with criminal negligence that person causes physical injury to another person by means of a dangerous instrument; or (3) by words or other conduct that person recklessly places another person in fear of imminent physical injury. (b) Assault in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor. CHAIR McGUIRE surmised that the bill pertains only to the crime of assault in the fourth degree and that the bill's reference to the aforementioned statute is merely setting mandatory minimum sentences. Number 2098 REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked that the bill appears to punish reckless assault and verbal assault, and asked why it didn't focus on intentional assault. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered that the language in the bill merely mirrors current statute with regard to assaulting law enforcement officers, firefighters, correctional officers, and emergency medical technicians, ambulance attendants, paramedics, and other emergency responders. Basically, the bill adds school employees to that list. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he is troubled by mandating minimum sentences for the crimes referenced in the bill, and suggested leaving the sentencing up to the judge's discretion. CHAIR McGUIRE pointed out, however, that the current statute being altered by SSHB 54 stipulates a mental state of knowingly and already provides mandatory minimum sentences for the crimes referenced in the bill. She noted that all the persons listed, both in the current statute and in the bill, must be engaged in the performance of official duties in order for an assault on them to be considered a crime under this proposed statute. In response to a question, she reread AS 11.41.230(a)(3): "(3) by words or other conduct that person recklessly places another person in fear of imminent physical injury". She predicted that a "reasonable person" standard would be used. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he isn't sure whether that standard would be used. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the bill need not propose the addition of a new paragraph (2) to current statute; instead, it could merely add, "an employee of an elementary, junior high, or secondary school" to the list set forth in paragraph (1) of the bill, the list that is already part of current statute. Much of the language in proposed paragraph (2) is already part of current statute, he noted. He also suggested that they tighten the title. Number 1889 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated he would view Representative Gruenberg's suggestion as a friendly amendment. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested debating AS 11.41.230(a)(1), (2), and (3) separately, since they are three separate crimes. CHAIR McGUIRE agreed, and reread AS 11.41.230(a)(1): "(1) that person recklessly causes physical injury to another person;". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has no problem providing for a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 days when that crime has been committed against a school employee, and characterized it as a reasonable sentence. CHAIR McGUIRE reread AS 11.41.230(a)(2), which says in part: "(2) with criminal negligence that person causes physical injury to another person by means of a dangerous instrument;". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has no problem with providing for a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 days when that crime has been committed against a school employee. CHAIR McGUIRE again reread AS 11.41.230(a)(3): "(3) by words or other conduct that person recklessly places another person in fear of imminent physical injury". She suggested that they take the reference to that crime out of SSHB 54, since it only requires proof of recklessness. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he could envision criminalizing reckless behavior committed against a school employee, and opined that people shouldn't be treating teachers in that fashion. He, too, predicted that a "reasonable person" standard used be would. CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to a question, noted that violation of AS 11.41.230 constitutes assault in the fourth degree, which is a class A misdemeanor. REPRESENTATIVE OGG, using the example of doctors and hospital employees, pointed out that aside from perhaps correctional officers and law enforcement officers, no one expects to be assaulted while doing his/her job, and so if they are going to single out school employees, they might as well just provide for a mandatory minimum sentence when anyone gets assaulted as described in AS 11.41.230. He said he has a problem elevating one particular group of people over other groups. Number 1627 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN argued, however, that in addition to helping people and being required to protect students, school employees are also government employees; thus attacking a school employee is akin to attacking the government. REPRESENTATIVE OGG questioned, then, whether all government employees, for example, legislators, should be included under the provisions of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that teachers, whom he suggested act as agents of the parents, deserve the extra protection that would be afforded via passage of SSHB 54. Characterizing school as a dangerous place, he mentioned some of his experiences as a teacher having to confront angry parents. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, on the issue of doctors and government employees, noted that some doctors are also government employees but some are not, and the same could be said of pilots - in any given profession, people are doing the same job though they may or may not be employed by the government; therefore, the law should not provide some people extra protection based solely on whether they are government workers. He questioned why the bill only proposes to add school employees to the list, why not also doctors, nurses, and pilots. REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked that Representative Ogg has a good point. He offered his understanding that in the two instances of assaults on teachers that were included in members' packets as examples, the perpetrators got longer sentences than what is being proposed in SSHB 54. What is the problem that the bill proposes to correct, he asked. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said simply that the goal of the bill is to make it safer for teachers to do their job without fear of reprisal from angry parents. Teachers deserve this type of protection, he again opined. REPRESENTATIVE GARA again pointed out that the courts are already sentencing people to more jail time than is being proposed via SSHB 54. He said that since this conduct is already a crime, he is a little wary about establishing a minimum sentence when the conduct doesn't constitute intentional assault. He suggested altering the bill so that it provided a minimum mandatory sentence for intentional assault. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that "we need to have something more than we have now," adding that he wouldn't have problem with changing the bill as Representative Gara suggests. REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked Representative Lynn whether he has any evidence - for example, statistics from other jurisdictions - which shows that a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 days will act as a deterrent. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he did not, but offered his belief that "this is done in other jurisdictions," and that various school [districts] support SSHB 54. CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to comments, noted that members' packets include a memorandum from Legislative Legal and Research Services that details other states' statutes pertaining to this issue. Number 1296 REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1: after "sentenced" on page 2, line 1, add the words, ", if the assault was intentional,"; and place a period after "(1)" on page 2, line 2, and delete the remainder. The proposed language would then read in part: (d) A defendant convicted of assault in the fourth degree who knowingly directed the conduct constituting the offense at ... (2) an employee of an elementary, junior high, or secondary school who was engaged in the performance of school duties at the time of the assault shall be sentenced, if the assault was intentional, to a minimum term of imprisonment of (A) 60 days if the defendant violated AS 11.41.230(a)(1). Number 1289 CHAIR McGUIRE objected [for the purpose of discussion]. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he is willing to establish a mandatory minimum sentence in instances of intentional assault on a teacher, but is not thrilled about establishing a mandatory minimum sentence in instances where the assault is not intentional or where it's just a verbal assault. He offered his belief that the latter kinds of assault can be dealt with via existing statute and a judge can use his/her discretion with regard to sentencing. Amendment 1 would change the bill such that it would only deal with intentional physical assaults on school employees. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he is comfortable with Amendment 1. Number 1217 VANESSA TONDINI, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, mentioned that by adding the mental state of intentional, Amendment 1 would make the provisions regarding this new crime of assaulting a school employee similar to the provisions pertaining to assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree. REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that the bill only alters the statute pertaining to assault in the fourth degree. He offered: "If something is a recklessness crime, you can charge intent as a recklessness crime, because intent is more serious than recklessness; so you would be saying to the jury, 'It was at least reckless if not intentional,' and so you just get your 60 days by charging it as fourth degree assault." Number 1188 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1170 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, to make the title as narrow as possible to conform to what the committee has done. CHAIR McGUIRE added, "Specifically the mental intent, ... and to educational folks ...." Number 1148 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE OGG, referring to the aforementioned memorandum from Legislative Legal and Research Services, noted that most of the statutes that other states have adopted apply to students who assault teachers, and that none appear to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 days or 30 days. He opined that the length of sentence should be left up to the judge's discretion, and remarked that he did not see a deterrent component to SSHB 54. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he didn't know why they are not also including emergency room doctors, for example, and other persons who work in occupations where there is a high risk of coming in contact with angry individuals. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether aggravators would apply. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he is not sure. He indicated that he would not be comfortable imposing a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 days on a student who loses control and assaults a teacher. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, in response to questions, offered his belief that SSHB 54 would apply to students who are 18 years old, and in instances wherein a coach gets assaulted. He asked that the committee consider moving the amended version of the bill from committee. CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to a question, mentioned that the bill has been referred to the House Finance Committee. Number 0903 CHAIR McGUIRE moved to report SSHB 54, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSSHB 54(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|