Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/13/2019 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB35 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 35-CRIMES;SEX CRIMES;SENTENCING; PAROLE
1:33:56 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the only order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 35, "An Act eliminating marriage as a defense to
certain crimes of sexual assault; relating to enticement of a
minor; relating to harassment in the first degree; relating to
harassment in the second degree; relating to indecent viewing or
production of a picture; relating to the definition of 'sexual
contact'; relating to assault in the second degree; relating to
sentencing; relating to prior convictions; relating to the
definition of 'most serious felony'; relating to the definition
of 'sexual felony'; relating to the duty of a sex offender or
child kidnapper to register; relating to eligibility for
discretionary parole; and providing for an effective date."
1:34:07 PM
CHAIR HUGHES made opening remarks.
1:34:21 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute to SB 35, labeled 31-GS1873\U, Radford, 3/12/19,
Version U, as the working document of the committee.
1:34:30 PM
CHAIR HUGHES objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:35:14 PM
REGINA LARGENT, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, introduced herself.
1:35:17 PM
BUDDY WHITT, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, expressed thanks to members for their work
on the proposed changes to SB 35. He directed attention to SB
35, Section 7 of Version A, AS 11.61.118(a), related to
harassment in the first degree and Section 13, AS 11.81.900(b)
regarding sexual contact, which have been removed from the bill.
Those provisions were placed in a bill sponsored by Senator
Micciche, currently before the Senate Finance Standing
Committee.
MR. WHITT reviewed the changes in the proposed committee
substitute for SB 35, Version U, beginning with the title
change.
Explanation of Changes in Committee Substitute for
CSSB35
Version A to U
Title Changes: The following has been added to the
title to the bill in order to conform to added
provisions of the CS;
? relating to sexual abuse of a minor
? relating to indecent exposure
? relating to the distribution of child pornography
? relating to automated victim notification system
? relating to the definition of 'sex offense'
1:36:49 PM
MR. WHITT explained that corrections for small drafting errors
along with some substantive amendments were requested of
Legislative Legal Services and will be forthcoming.
CHAIR HUGHES said she hoped to take up amendments at a
subsequent hearing on SB 35.
1:37:41 PM
MR. WHITT turned to Section 1.
Section 1: Conforming changes to clarify references
with the new work draft and references to previous
legislation in order to clarify legislative intent.
MR. WHITT said Section 1 would require convicted offenders
listed on sex registries in other jurisdictions to register in
Alaska.
1:38:08 PM
MR. WHITT turned to Section 7.
Section 7: Amends AS 11.41.458(a) to make masturbation
in front of someone under the age of 16 the crime of
indecent exposure in the first degree. (Conforming
language will add this as a registerable sex offense)
(Page 3, Line 31 through Page 4, Line 11)
MR. WHITT reviewed the forthcoming change to this section. He
directed attention to page 4, lines 1-11 of SB 35, Version U.
Chair Hughes and some members wanted to make the offense that
occurs in front of a person under 16 years of age a stricter
penalty. The penalty is currently a class C felony and would be
increased to a class B felony.
1:39:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that an offender who
exposes and masturbates in front of a victim who is under 16
years of age, knowing the victim can see the perpetrator, would
be guilty of a sex felony as opposed to a sex misdemeanor crime.
MS. LARGENT agreed that is correct, before an unwilling person.
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that this provision
would include an exhibitionist in a hotel window, which is
clearly inappropriate and criminal, but it would be a sex felony
crime instead of a sex misdemeanor crime.
MS. LARGENT said that is correct.
1:40:36 PM
MR. WHITT directed attention to page 5, lines 3-20, Section 9,
to a small change in the wording to ensure that indecent viewing
or a "peeping Tom" is covered under the criminal statutes. He
deferred to the Department of Law to further explain.
CHAIR HUGHES asked staff to further clarify.
1:41:37 PM
MS. LARGENT explained that the Department of Law and Senator
Reinbold pointed out some ambiguity in this provision. After
meeting with the DOL and the legislative bill drafter. Section
9 contains the cleanup language, she said.
MR. WHITT, in response to Chair Hughes, said small conforming
language changes were made in Section 9 to ensure that "peeping
Tom" offenders were not being protected. It was not listed in
the explanation of changes document because it is not a
substantive change, but he would add it.
CHAIR HUGHES agreed the document should reflect the conforming
change to Section 9.
1:42:44 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the "peeping Tom" penalty is at the
same level as viewing a picture but producing the picture would
still be at a higher penalty.
MR. WHITT deferred to the Department of Law but said that was
the sponsor's intent.
1:43:11 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD clarified that the language seemed to legalize
"peeping Tom" activities and the intent is to close that
loophole.
MR. WHITT confirmed that the small language change fixes it.
1:43:45 PM
MR. WHITT read Section 12:
Section 12: Amends AS 11.61.123(f) to indecent viewing
or production of a picture a class B felony, when the
person capturing the picture is an adult and the
picture being captured of a minor. (Page 5, Line 31
through Page 6, Line 10)
CHAIR HUGHES explained that prior to this change in Section 12
of Version U, to page 6, line 3-5, the penalties for viewing and
production were both a class C felony. However, production is
more serious since it might include installing cameras or
creating videos rather than just looking in a window. Changes in
Section 12 would increase the penalty for production. She
pointed out that if victim is an adult, the penalties are at two
levels, but the viewing and production of the picture for a
minor was at the same level. She explained that in the drafting
multiple things were bumped up.
1:45:16 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE referred to page 5 of Version U, Section 9, and
asked why this language seems to allow youth ages 13-16 to give
consent to be photographed, including the private exposure parts
on [page 5], line 7.
MR. WHITT and Ms. Largent deferred to the Department of Law.
1:46:53 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office,
Criminal Division, Department of Law, Juneau, said she was not
privy to discussions between members and the Chair. She asked
whether it was his understanding those sections would be
changed.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether youth between the ages of 13-16
could give consent for a photograph to be viewed or produced of
them, including the private exposure of items listed on page
5,line 7 [the genitals, anus, or female breast of another
person].
MS. SCHROEDER answered that a youth between the ages of 13-16
would need to give consent and have parental consent from both
parents. That is the way SB 35 is currently drafted, she said.
She said that if members want to change it that it is a policy
call that they can make.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked said that a 13-year-old cannot consent to
having sex since it would be considered rape. Further, parents
cannot give consent for a child between the ages of 13-16 to
have sex. She asked for further clarification on the reason that
this would be different for an indecent private exposure.
MS. SCHROEDER clarified that this is not involving pornography
or a person engaging in a lewd act. This pertains to private
exposure. She advised that the delineations on who can give
consent was made by the legislature a long time ago. She said it
is open for discussion if these need to be revisited.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he was trying to understand when that
activity would occur.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that sometimes youth between the ages of
13-16 agree to that type of conduct. They may be in a
relationship with someone who is older, but the safeguard would
be that they also need parental consen. She said that these are
older children and even if the parents give consent, they may
want to have say over what is happening with their own bodies.
CHAIR HUGHES said she was struggling to understand when this
would be sanctioned, perhaps for art purposes.
1:49:48 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that perhaps it would apply to a
medical journal. He said that parents should not have children
under their care who could subject their children to some pretty
horrible things. He offered his belief that this section
requires additional conversation. He maintained he is trying to
understand an application where it would be a really good idea
to give consent.
MS. SCHROEDER said that the department has had a case where a
14-year-old wanted to have those types of photos, but the
parents did not consent. She offered that for younger children,
under 13 years of age, it pertained to situations where parents
may wish to take photographs of their baby in a bathtub.
1:50:59 PM
CHAIR HUGHES clarified that she would not find it appropriate
for explicit photographs of children between the ages of 13-16
but perhaps for medical purposes.
1:51:22 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said his question was on Section 12. He asked Mr.
Whitt to review the section.
1:51:54 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 12.
Section 12: Amends AS 11.61.123(f) to make indecent
viewing or production of a picture a class B felony,
when the person capturing the picture is an adult and
the picture being captured is of a minor. (Page 5,
Line 31 through Page 6, Line 10)
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that this would pertain
to a minor 16 years of age and under and not someone who is 17
years old.
MR. WHITT said that was his interpretation.
1:53:05 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked the Department of Law to weigh in on the
class B felony in Sections 7 and 12. She asked how this compares
with other class B felonies and if the penalties are appropriate
for the conduct.
MS. SCHROEDER asked for further clarification if this section
was one that had drafting issues.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether this would go from a class C felony
to a class B felony.
MR. WHITT explained that the purpose and intent of Section 7 is
that the penalties for indecent exposure in the first degree for
a victim who is a minor, 16 years of age and under, would be
different than when the victim is over 16 years of age. This
would differentiate between victims who are minors and adult
victims. He said that Chair Hughes requested that the crime
involving a minor should be classified as a class B felony. He
anticipated this change would be included in a forthcoming
amendment.
SENATOR REINBOLD said it causes her a lot of pause. For example,
if the activity was between two 15-year-olds who are minors. She
asked for further clarification on whether the crime would be
consistent with other class B felonies.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that if the legislature wants to
differentiate between penalties for crimes involving children
and those involving adults, it would be is a policy call. She
offered her belief that this particular suggestion does not seem
to be in "left field."
1:56:29 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the penalty provisions in
Sections 7 and 12 that increase from a class C felony to a class
B felony were appropriate penalties for the crimes.
MS. SCHROEDER said that would be the same answer. If the
legislature would like to elevate charges for crimes against
children, it is a policy call.
CHAIR HUGHES clarified that a difference exists for the crime of
viewing and of production. She agreed that those sections still
need additional work.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she was contemplating the penalties for
actual abuse and ones in which the perpetrator does not touch
the victims at all.
1:57:59 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked Ms. Schroeder to review how conduct between
two 15-year-old minors is different from the conduct when the
perpetrator is a 30-year-old adult and the victim is a 15-year-
old minor.
MS. SCHROEDER said that when two minors under the ages of 18
years of age engage in consensual behavior, it would be viewed
differently. The department would exercise its prosecutorial
discretion differently than if the conduct is between a 30-year-
old and a 15-year-old minor. She said it was important to keep
in mind that unless the person is waived into adult court, which
happens infrequently, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
would handle these cases. She deferred to the DJJ to further
explain.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for clarification on the intent of the
penalties in this section.
CHAIR HUGHES responded that the intent is for the penalty for
the crime of production of a photograph of a minor to be a class
B felony.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for the penalties in Section 7.
1:59:17 PM
MR. WHITT reiterated that forthcoming language changes would
make the penalty for indecent exposure in the first degree when
the victim is under the age of 16 years of age and the offender
is an adult a class C felony.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether 18 years of age is considered an
adult.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that someone 18 years of age or above is
an adult.
1:59:56 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked how that relates to the age differences
built into the penalties for statutory rape. For example, if an
adult 18 years of age is independent from these statutes.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that those age differences are
independent of this statute.
2:00:48 PM
SENATOR SHOWER offered his belief that the age groupings are
confusing, such that some provisions apply to victims ages 13-
16, but 18 years and older refers to an adult. He asked if it
could be rephrased.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that the underlying statute is very
confusing. The Department of Law tried to make improvements and
the Legislative Legal Services has made improvements. However,
additional improvements could be made, she said. The department
has reverted to the use of minor in this section, which is
someone under the age of 18. She said that this is the intent of
the Department of Law, but she was unsure if it meshes with the
committee's intent. She explained that it would be a
registerable sex offense if someone committed this offense and
the victim is a minor or someone under 18 years old. She said
the committee could make other age delineations as a matter of
policy.
SENATOR REINBOLD remarked that any clarification on the bill
would be helpful.
2:02:33 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Program Officer, Division of Juvenile Justice
(DJJ), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Juneau,
stated that he could speak generally on questions about juvenile
offenders. He explained that juveniles 17 years of age or
younger are referred to DJJ. The division handles these cases
based upon their risk and needs and the risk of them
reoffending. He said that sentencing provisions do not apply,
that the division would make its own determination on penalties,
whether the penalty would be incarceration, probation, or
treatment. The division said that indecent viewing and
production are crimes that juveniles commit on each other. He
said that kids take pictures of each other in locker rooms and
other locations. These types of offenses are often referred to
the DJJ and criminal charges are filed by the police.
2:04:13 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the crimes listed in Section 7
should be class B felonies.
MR. DAVIDSON asked for further clarification.
MR. WHITT explained that in Section 7 an adult convicted of
indecent exposure in the first degree by victimizing a minor
under the age of 16 would be guilty of a class B felony.
However, if two minors under the ages of 16 engage in consensual
conduct, the class B penalty would not apply to them.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that under current law an
adult convicted of indecent exposure in the first degree for
victimizing a minor under the age of 16 would be guilty of a
class C felony.
MR. DAVIDSON said that if both the offender and the victim were
juveniles it would stay in the juvenile system. He said that
earlier Ms. Schroeder mentioned an automatic waiver. These are
juveniles who have been waived to the adult system under AS
47.12.030 due to the severity of the crimes. He said that
statute lists offenses that tend to be the more severe
unclassified felonies, including arson, sexual assault, and
other high-level crimes that juveniles ages 16 and over engage
in, but the class B felonies are not typically waived to adult
court.
2:06:44 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether it is the committee's intention
to make the penalty for an adult, an 18-year-old, who
masturbates in front of a juvenile under the age of 16 years old
a class B felony. She asked whether he would support prosecuting
that crime as a class B felony.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that he does not have an opinion on it. He
said it would be a policy call by the legislature. Further, it
would not be a juvenile matter if the offender is 18 years old.
2:07:32 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he was unsure of when an inappropriate
photo becomes pornography. He wondered how parents could give
permission to a 13-year-old to produce an inappropriate photo.
It said he was struggling with those sections of the bill.
2:08:33 PM
MS. SCHROEDER said that the conduct referred to as indecent
viewing addressed in Sections 9, 11, and 12, is the private
exposure of someone. She described the activity as capturing a
nude person in a photo, but not doing anything else. She said
the specific definition for child pornography is a person under
the age of 18 engaging in:
(1) sexual penetration,
(2) the lewd touching of another person's genitals,
anus, or breast
(3) the lewd touching by another person of the child's
genitals, anus, or breast;
(4) masturbation;
(5) bestiality;
(6) the lewd exhibition of a child's genitals; or
(7) sexual masochism or sadism.
She said that is the range of conduct considered when discussing
making child pornography, distributing child pornography, and
possessing child pornography.
CHAIR HUGHES understood that sexual activity is involved in the
imagery in child pornography that is not included with
production of photographs.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that is helpful. He still does not support
the section related to producing nude photos. He would like to
continue to work on it.
2:10:46 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether a parent can consent for juveniles
ages 14-16, but it would require consent of both parents for
juveniles ages 13 and under.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the word "and" means that it needs
both parents to consent.
SENATOR KIEHL [referred to page 5, line 14]. He read portions of
[Section 12], paragraph (2), which read:
(2) produces a picture of the private exposure of the
genitals, anus, or female breast of another person and
the production occurs without the knowledge or consent
of
(A) the parent or guardian of under 16 years of
age; and
(B) the person shown in the picture if the person
shown is at least 13 years of age.
He said that consent of the minor and the parents is required if
the child is 13 or 14, but only parental consent for juveniles
ages 15-16. He thought it might be worth reviewing the
underlying law.
MS. SCHROEDER said that [in Section 12] if the juvenile is under
16, it would require parental consent and if the minor is at
least 13, it requires both parents and the 13-year-old. She
interpreted that to mean it only requires the parental consent
if the minor is under the age of 13.
2:12:26 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether that has been adjudicated through
the courts for the ages of 13 or below.
MS. SCHROEDER said this section of criminal law is often
litigated because it is drafted in a confusing manner. She said
that the committee may bring further clarity in terms of the age
distinctions.
SENATOR MICCICHE suggested considering a reasonable upper age
limit.
2:13:40 PM
MR. WHITT suggested that the Department of Law could highlight
the reason for changes to this section, which is to add clarity
to current law.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that the Department of Law originally
started amending [AS 11.61.120] for two reasons. First, the
statute is drafted in a confusing manner and the department
often spends time litigating it. Second, the department would
like to make some conduct, in particular the production of
photos, a sexual felony. This conduct is currently not a sexual
felony. Using a tiered approach where the victim is juvenile,
the offense is sentenced at a higher range. If the victim is an
adult and produces photographs, it is a class C felony but also
a registerable sex offense. She emphasized that the department
is trying to make some of that conduct a registerable sex
offense. In current statute, viewing and production are jumbled
together. The department would like to separate out that
conduct, which is the goal. The department is very open to
further clarification in this area.
2:15:27 PM
MR. WHITT reiterated that this bill seeks to clarify current law
and not create more issues. The committee will continue to work
to tweak the language.
CHAIR HUGHES acknowledged that some issues have been raised
about age differences. Further, the committee needs to consider
a parent allowing minors to pose for photos except for a medical
journal.
2:16:24 PM
MR. WHITT read Section 7(a).
(a) An offender commits the crime of indecent exposure
in the first degree if the offender violates AS
11.41.460(a) and
(1) while committing the act constituting the
offense, the offender knowingly masturbates; or
(2) the offense occurs within the observation of
a person under 16 years of age and the offender
has been previously convicted under
(A) this section;
(B) AS 11.41.460(a); or
(C) a law or ordinance of this or another
jurisdiction with elements similar to a
crime listed under (A) or (B) of this
paragraph.
He explained that the crime occurs when the offender commits
indecent exposure when they commit the crime within the view of
someone under 16 years of age and the offender had previously
committed the crime in Alaska or another jurisdiction. He said
the intent is not just related to age but also relates to
repeated indecent conduct.
2:17:37 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether this bill applies to sex
trafficking and cybercrime or if it should be expanded to cover
those crimes.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that it does not matter if the activity
involving photographs occurs online. However, if the picture is
of sexual acts, the department has a whole host of statutes that
it can charge under.
2:18:50 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that currently if an adult exposes themselves
to a person under 16 years of age, the offender would already be
guilty of indecent exposure in the first degree.
MR. WHITT offered to review it.
2:19:39 PM
MS. LARGENT answered that he is correct that the language is not
currently fixed. She said that provision is intended to increase
to a class B felony. The class B felony issue discussed today is
[where the conduct occurred in front of someone under] 16 years
of age and had a prior conviction.
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether there is a way to specifically
address that but not bump masturbation in front of someone who
does not wish to see it to a charge of indecent exposure in the
first degree.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the penalty would
only be increased if the indecent exposure happened in front of
minors.
MS. LARGENT clarified it would be for indecent exposure to
minors and for having a second conviction. She asked whether
Senator Kiehl was interested in sentencing enhancement.
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether Section 7 would increase the penalty
for masturbating in front of an adult who does not want to see
it. He related his understanding that this would increase the
penalty from indecent exposure in the second degree to indecent
exposure in the first degree.
MS. LARGENT answered that is correct. It would also be a crime
for someone to masturbate in front of someone 16 years or older.
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether Section 7 would make it a higher
level of crime. He understood the rationale for masturbating in
front of a 16-year-old and for repeat offences. He was unsure of
[the increased penalty].
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether this would increase the level of
crime for victims who are adults, which was not the intent.
2:22:04 PM
MR. WHITT answered that this would need to be amended since it
was not the intent. The intent is that the penalty would be a
higher-level crime when the offender is an adult and the victim
is a minor. He agreed that is not the way the bill currently
reads.
2:22:52 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification on age
classifications.
CHAIR HUGHES asked the Department of Law if a minor is someone
age 17 and under.
MS. SCHROEDER answered yes.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether there is a separate definition for a
child.
MS. SCHOREDER answered no.
2:23:33 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that AS 11.41.460(a) relates to indecent
exposure and does not cover masturbation.
MR. WHITT pointed out that AS 11.41.460 relates to indecent
exposure in the second degree and this relates to indecent
exposure in the first degree. In order to be guilty of indecent
exposure in the first degree the person must have committed
indecent exposure in the second degree plus the added pieces of
this section. He agreed that the section needs work.
2:24:52 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he would like to hear the Department of
Law address this over the next few days. He offered that the
department has a familiarity with this statute, and he would
like to hear their suggestions rather than for the committee to
"chase our tails."
CHAIR HUGHES remarked that the committee's goal is to try to get
this right. She offered to have conversations with the
Department of Law to try to clarify the problematic provisions.
2:26:40 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 13.
Section 13: Amends AS 11.61.125(e) to make
distribution of child pornography a class A felony on
first offense. (Page 6, Line 11 through line 17)
MR. WHITT reminded members that the repealer section is at the
end of the bill. He pointed out that AS 11.61.124(e)(1) would be
repealed. This lists class B felony. He reiterated that section
changes the crime to class A felony regardless of whether it is
a first offense or a repeat offense.
2:27:33 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 14.
Section 14: Amends AS 12.55.015 by adding a new
subsection (l) that states there is a presumption of a
no contact order between the defendant and the victim
until the defendant is unconditionally discharged.
(Page 6, lines 18 through 23)
MR. WHITT explained that this change was suggested by Senator
Kiehl. He pointed out a drafting error. This section was
intended to specifically apply to sex offenses as defined under
AS 12.63.100 or a crime involving domestic violence as defined
in AS 18.66.990. He stated a forthcoming amendment would fix
this.
CHAIR HUGHES said that Senator Kiehl's request was to narrow it
to apply to domestic violence. She related her understanding
that technical problems arose in Version U when it was drafted.
MR. WHITT responded that was his understanding.
SENATOR KIEHL agreed.
2:28:45 PM
MR. WHITT turned to Section 15 related to enhanced sentencing
for class B felonies and assault in the second degree. This
section has been addressed in another bill and will be removed
from SB 35.
2:29:16 PM
MR. WHITT read Section 16.
Section 16: Amends AS 12.55.125(i) with sentencing
guideline language to conform with Section 7 "sexual
abuse of a minor in the third degree", Section 9
"indecent viewing or production of a picture" and
Section 13 "distribution of child pornography". (Page
7, line 14 through Page 10, line 5) (Section changes
are found on page 8, line 5 and Page8, lines 18
through 21)
2:29:36 PM
MR. WHITT read Section 17.
Section 17: No substantive change but a clean-up in
wording for AS 12.55.145(a)(4)(D). (Page 11, line 31
through Page 12, line 2)
MR. WHITT said that this would relate to convictions in another
jurisdiction. It specifically relates to guidelines for the
purposes of considering prior conviction and imposing sentences.
He clarified that it carries the same intent the bill sponsor
would like to accomplish.
2:30:26 PM
MR. WHITT read Section 19.
Section 19: Conforming language for the definition of
"sexual felony" to include "sexual abuse of a minor in
the third degree" and "indecent viewing or production
of a picture". These changes in sentence structure
conform to changes in Sections 7 and 9 of the bill.
2:30:51 PM
MR. WHITT read Section 20.
Section 20: Amends AS 12.61.050(c) to direct the
Department of Corrections to include in the Victim
Notification System (VINE) information for victims of
a crime involving domestic violence or a sex offense,
on how to request a protective order and to provide
contact information for state victim resources. (Page
13, lines 6 through 13)
He said this is also conforming language to Sections 7 and 9 of
the bill.
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 20.
Section 20: Amends AS 12.61.050(c) to direct the
Department of Corrections to include in the Victim
Notification System (VINE) information for victims of
a crime involving domestic violence or a sex offense,
on how to request a protective order and to provide
contact information for state victim resources. (Page
13, lines 6 through 13
MR. WHITT said the victim notification system is already in
statute and is already working. Senator Kiehl suggested this
language, so that a victim of domestic violence or sex offense
would be given additional information to secure a protective
order against the individual's past victimizer.
2:31:47 PM
MR. WHITT read Section 21-22.
Section 21: Amends AS 12.63.010(d) with conforming
language for Sections 22 and 23. (Page 13. Lines 14
through 27)
Section 22: Amends AS 12.63.020 with language to
reconcile the duration requirements in Section 23 for
sex offenders from other jurisdictions to register
when in the state of Alaska. (Page 13, line 28 through
Page 15, line 23)
MR. WHITT explained that Section 22 was requested by Ms. Largent
to tighten up and make clear the state's desire that people
coming to Alaska from other jurisdictions need to register as
sex offenders in the state.
2:32:26 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 26.
Section 26: Amends AS 33.16.090(b) with conforming
language for Section 25, as well as making class B and
C sex offenses ineligible for discretionary parole.
(Page 18, line 24 through Page 20, line 23)
He said that many of these sections are also included in SB 34.
Chair Hughes would like to remove Sections 25 and 26 and insert
them in SB 34, where the changes are more appropriate.
2:33:09 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed Sections 27-29.
Section 27: Amends AS 44.19.647(a) and instructs the
Alaska Judicial Council to include in their annual
report, data collected by the Department of Law as
described in Section 29. (Page 20, line 24 through
Page 21, line 8)
Section 28: Adds a new subsection (k) to AS 44.23.020
instructing the Department of Law to develop a
[tracking mechanism to obtain] certain information
[regarding] sex offense complaints by region. (Page
21, line 9 through line 19)
Section 29: Adds a new subsection (b) to AS 44.23.040
instructing the Department of Law to gather and report
data on felony sex offenses including the number
reported but not referred for prosecution, the number
referred for prosecution that were not prosecuted, and
the number the number that resulted in a conviction of
a crime other than a sex offense. (Page 21, line 20
through line 29)
MR. WHITT explained that these three sections all relate to
information gathering for reporting. Chair Hughes would like the
state to have a better grasp on what is happening in the state
with respect to unreported sex crimes and the reasons that some
sex crimes are not prosecuted.
2:34:35 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said that [Standing Together Against Rape] (STAR)
brought these requests forward. She asked Ms. Largent to explain
an additional language request from STAR. She indicated she
liked the recommendation since it was more descriptive, but the
committee was unable to make the change.
MS. LARGENT said that STAR asked to rename sexual assault
because jurors sometimes expect victims to have visible
injuries. Sometimes this charge is related to a victim who does
not have the capacity to consent and the offender is charged
with sexual assault. Legislative Legal Services does not have
the power to make the change. She said that the statute headings
are created by the revisor of statutes. The process used to
change the headings happens when substantive changes are made to
statutes. The legislature could then request the change.
However, in this instance no substantive change was being made.
CHAIR HUGHES said at the point when substantive changes are next
made, the legislature would request it through the revisors bill
since it was a good idea.
2:36:40 PM
MR. WHITT read Section 30.
Section 30: Amends AS 47.17.020(e) adds indecent
viewing or production of a picture as described in
Sections 8 and 9, as possible criminal conduct that
must be reported under the State's "duty to report"
statutes. (Page 21, line 30 through Page 22, line 12)
2:37:08 PM
MR. WHITT read Section 33.
Section 33: Instructions for revisor to change the
heading of AS 11.61.123 to "Indecent viewing or
production".(Page 23, line 11 through Page 23, line
16)
CHAIR HUGHES pointed out the genesis of the change in Section
30. Senator Reinbold brought up the prevalence of students who
text explicit photos to one another. She said that school staff
has a duty to report that conduct.
CHAIR HUGHES remarked that some items would need to be fixed.
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further
objection, the committee substitute (CS) for SB 35, Version U
was adopted.
2:38:28 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he researched the issue of requiring sex
offenders convicted in another jurisdiction to register in
Alaska. He offered his belief that the existing statute could
use some tightening. He expressed concern that the way the
governor's bill is written it delegates the legislature's
constitutional authority to other state legislatures. He was
unsure if it was constitutional to do so. It would require
people to register for things that are not crimes in Alaska or
anywhere in the U.S.
SENATOR KIEHL, in response to Chair Hughes, said an example
would be engaging in consensual homosexual sex. He said at least
one state requires adults engaging in that behavior to register
as sex offenders. He said that he is working on language that
would tighten the registry that would require offenders who have
committed crimes in other states who must register in Alaska to
do so. However, if the other state's law is broader than Alaska
law and the conduct is not against the law in Alaska those
offenders would not be required to register in Alaska.
MS. LARGENT acknowledged that as Senator Kiehl mentioned, some
crimes on the list do not exactly match up. She said that any
laws that make sodomy a crime in other states are unenforceable.
These laws were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court under
Lawrence v. Texas, 1994. She has requested that the Department
of Public Safety ask whether the state's sex registry has been
purged for anyone who was convicted in another state under
sodomy laws. She offered to report back to the committee and
Senator Kiehl's office.
[SB 35 was held in committee.]
2:41:48 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reviewed upcoming committee announcements.
2:42:29 PM
SENATOR SHOWER remarked that he was unsure that the Legislative
Legal Services bill drafters could draft the amendments timely.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJUD Agenda 3.13.19.pdf |
SJUD 3/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
|
| CSSB35 Version U.pdf |
SJUD 3/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| CSSB35 Explanation of Changes from Version A to U.pdf |
SJUD 3/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |