Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
02/10/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB343 | |
| HB226 | |
| HB190 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 226 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 343 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 343 - HARASSMENT 1:18:11 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 343, "An Act relating to harassment." 1:18:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON referred to Amendment 1, labeled 24- LS1002\G.5, Luckhaupt, 2/8/06, which read: Page 3, line 4, following "responder": Insert "or medical professional" Page 3, following line 8: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 5. AS 12.55.135(j) is amended by adding a new paragraph to read: (3) "medical professional" means a person who is an anesthesiologist, dentist, dental hygienist, health aide, nurse, nurse aid [sic], nurse practitioner, mental health counselor, physician, physician assistant, psychiatrist, osteopath, psychologist, psychological associate, radiologist, surgeon, or x-ray technician, or who holds a substantially similar position." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that Amendment 1 would add "medical professional" to the list of those people for whom a violation against would engender a minimum mandatory sentence of 60 days, and would add a definition of "medical professional". Thus the protection afforded by HB 343 would not stop at the hospital door. She indicated that the proposed definition was gleaned, in part, from [the definition of "health care worker" in] AS 11.41.470, and now also includes dental hygienist and nurse aide. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, in response to questions, indicated that the definition of "health care worker" in AS 11.41.470 was too broad for use in HB 343 because it included hypnotists, religious healing practitioners, and chiropractors; and that dental hygienists and nurse aides could be in situations where someone spits on them. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is concerned that chiropractors are not included in the proposed definition. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that as a rule, chiropractors are not in hospitals or in emergency situations. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to amend Amendment 1, to add chiropractors to the proposed definition of "medical professional". REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how that would fit in with the crime of harassment. He then acknowledged that chiropractors do work very closely with people, and indicated that he would not object to the amendment to Amendment 1. 1:21:54 PM CHAIR McGUIRE, indicating that she'd heard no further objection, announced that the amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is removing his objection. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to Amendment 1, as amended. There being none, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted. 1:22:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, to limit the bill, with regard to saliva, to just those listed in proposed AS 12.55.135(d), so that it won't apply in cases where two kids in a schoolyard fight spit on each other. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the crimes outlined in the bill apply to everyone, and that the bill then provides for a mandatory minimum sentence for those found guilty of the new crime of harassment in the first degree if the victim is someone listed in proposed AS 12.55.135(d). REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that for spitting, he wants to leave the existing law in place except when it involves the people listed in proposed AS 12.55.135(d). 1:25:06 PM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), relayed that currently, spitting would be prosecuted under the crime of harassment, which is a class B misdemeanor. In response to a question, she said that the crime of fourth degree assault is a class A misdemeanor. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that [spitting] could be prosecuted as an assault. MS. CARPENETI said it would depend on the facts. 1:26:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 343, said he would prefer to leave the bill as is with regard to saliva. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, remarking that he may have a potential conflict of interest, relayed that his son is in a situation wherein he is sometimes subjected to being spit upon. He noted that spit can carry disease. MS. CARPENETI mentioned that it is unlikely that the DOL would be able to prosecute spitting as an assault in the fourth degree unless the circumstances were extreme. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that the prosecution would have to show that the victim was injured from having been spit upon. He remarked, therefore, that he likes the bill the way it is [with regard to saliva]. MS. CARPENETI, in response to a comment, indicated that under the bill, spitting at someone would fall under the proposed crime of harassment in the first degree, a class A misdemeanor. In response to a question, she offered her belief that it might be possible to, in certain situations, have the behavior of spitting be subject to a class A misdemeanor without having the proposed mandatory minimum sentence apply. CHAIR McGUIRE offered her understanding that Conceptual Amendment 2 proposes to make the crime of harassment in the first degree when it involves saliva, and the proposed mandatory minimum sentence, only apply when it involves a victim listed in proposed AS 12.55.135(d). REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to a question, said that he wants other instances involving saliva to be a class B misdemeanor. MS. CARPENETI sought clarification. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said, "remain a class B misdemeanor just for spitting when it doesn't involve the ... professions that are addressed in this bill." MS. CARPENETI said that would involve further altering existing statute. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he wants to know why they should exclude other people from the protection [of a class A misdemeanor]. He said he would speak against Conceptual Amendment 2, particularly given that everybody might at one point in their life find themselves being spit upon. He sought further clarification regarding Conceptual Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that under Conceptual Amendment 2, those not listed in proposed AS 12.55.135(d) would still have the remedy of charging someone who spit on them with the crime of harassment. And if the person doing the spitting had an infectious disease, he surmised, then a victim not listed in proposed AS 12.55.135(d) could charge the person with a more serious crime on the basis that the spitting occurred with the intent to cause serious physical injury. MS. CARPENETI said, "Or through reckless endangerment." REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he simply wants to exempt schoolyard- fight situations. MS. CARPENETI acknowledged that when giving certain groups of people more protection than others, it is a policy call as to who to include. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that the question is, should they exclude schoolyard fights, and acknowledged that maybe sometimes a situation involving a such a fight would warrant prosecution. 1:34:10 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McGuire, Kott, and Gara voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2. Representatives Coghill, Wilson, Anderson, and Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-4. 1:34:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, to alter the bill such that it would allow the behavior that involves saliva to be a heightened crime unless the victim is the initial aggressor. He noted that the self- defense provisions of current law contain a similar caveat, so that although one generally has the right to self defense, one loses that right when one is the initial aggressor - the person starting the fight or altercation. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected, and noted that there is a tendency to think that spitting is "no big deal." However, spitting is a big deal because it could lead to the spread of very serious diseases, even fatal diseases. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that in gang-related altercations, the police are tasked with trying to find out who started an altercation. Therefore, he is concerned about the practical implications of Conceptual Amendment 3. MS. CARPENETI said the DOL would prefer that such a caveat not be put in substantive statute, and would prefer instead that the committee rely on the current justification statutes. In response to a question, she said that she is referring to AS 11.81.330(a)(1) [and (3)], and offered her belief that [those statutes are] not limited to serious crimes against a person. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that if Ms. Carpeneti is convinced that someone who is provoked into spitting on another person would be protected from prosecution, then he would be willing to withdraw Conceptual Amendment 3. MS. CARPENETI said she would give the issue more thought. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that perhaps a letter of intent might be in order. 1:39:41 PM MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, reiterated that she would prefer that a justification not be put into substantive statute, and that she would research this issue further. CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to comments, suggested that perhaps an amendment addressing Representative Gara's concern could be crafted before the bill is heard on the House floor. CHAIR McGUIRE announced that Conceptual Amendment 3 has been withdrawn. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the Alaska Court of Appeals case, McKillop v. State, thanked [Ms. Carpeneti] for discussing it with him, and mentioned that he would be willing to pursue the issues raised in that case further at another time should the DOL wish. 1:42:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report HB 343, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 343(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|