Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/22/2019 06:00 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 | |
SJR3 | |
SJR4 | |
SB33 | |
SB34 | |
SB52 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | SB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | SJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 33-ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION 6:08:51 PM CHAIR HUGHES announced that the next order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 33, "An Act relating to pretrial release; relating to sentencing; relating to treatment program credit toward service of a sentence of imprisonment; relating to electronic monitoring; amending Rules 38.2 and 45(d), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date." [The committee adopted the work draft CSSB 33(JUD), Version U, on 4/19/19 and considered Amendments 1-6.] 6:10:44 PM At-ease. 6:11:50 PM SENATOR HUGHES reconvened the meeting and moved to adopt Amendment 7, work order 31-GS1030\U.7, Radford, 4/19/19. Amendment 7 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES TO: CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U" Page 10, line 3, following "if": Insert ", before trial," SENATOR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes. 6:12:04 PM BUDDY WHITT, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, presented the changes in the committee substitute (CS) for SB 33, Version U. He directed attention to page 10, Section 15 of SB 33, Version U. He explained that [subsection (d)] was added because several committee members recognized the importance of notifying victims when a defendant is released or discharged from a treatment program for noncompliance. He said the language specifies mandatory notification, but not that the notification pertains only to the pretrial phase. In response to Chair Hughes, he said that Kaci Schroeder, Department of Law (DOL), requested this language be added to indicate that mandatory notification pertains to defendants in the pretrial phase. 6:13:16 PM SENATOR REINBOLD said she preferred the broader language, which would mean that the department would notify victims whenever a defendant is noncompliant. She said she will support Amendment 7. However, she said that she supports notification of noncompliance, whether it is the pretrial or post-trial phase. CHAIR HUGHES clarified that ten years later, the DOL may not have the contact information for the victim even though the victim may consider the defendant as an offender [but the case is closed]. Therefore, notification is limited to the pretrial phase in this bill. MR. WHITT offered his belief that the committee added victim notification in a previous crime bill related to the VINE [Victim Information and Notification Everyday] system. Further, victims have the ability to obtain protective orders, he said. 6:15:13 PM JOHN SKIDMORE, Division Director, Criminal Division, Central Office, Department of Law, Anchorage, said that without the language in Amendment 7, the Department of Law would be responsible for providing victim notification not just when an offender is noncompliant for failing to complete treatment in a pretrial setting, but also while the offenders are in custody. This could pertain to actions that the DOL may not know about, he said. For example, it could apply to offenders who are noncompliant during the period of probation or parole. Although the department is involved in probation matters, the DOL is not involved in parole violations since those violations would go to the Parole Board for consideration. Further, as previously noted, if treatment was continued beyond probation, the DOL would not have access to that information. Thus, it would be very difficult for the DOL to provide notification to victims for those timeframes. The department is not currently notifying victims of all probation and parole hearings, he said. If additional notification is added in this bill, the department would need to add a fiscal note to reflect its costs. Since the DOL should already be providing notification for pretrial activity, it does not need a fiscal note to reflect pretrial notification, he said. 6:16:50 PM SENATOR REINBOLD asked if notification was added in another crime bill for the VINE system when offenders are discharged from a treatment program for noncompliance. MR. SKIDMORE asked if she was asking whether VINE notifies victims when offenders are noncompliant with treatment programs. MR. WHITT clarified that he merely referenced other victim notification items the committee has worked on. He explained that the VINE system is used when offenders are released from prison, not for those who are discharged from a treatment program. In this context, notification to victims is limited to offenders in the pretrial phase, he said. He did not intend to imply that the VINE system notifies victims when offenders are involuntarily discharged from a treatment program. 6:18:02 PM SENATOR REINBOLD said she would support Amendment 7. She offered her belief that it would be helpful for victims to know if someone is discharged from treatment for noncompliance because the victim could be a target It is also important to know the outcomes of programs since the state is investing money in them, she said. MR. SKIDMORE replied that the department does not have a position on whether that type of notification should be done. However, the DOL may not be the appropriate entity to provide that type of notification if the committee chose to require it. Further, additional notification would have a fiscal impact for the department. He said he did not have an opinion on whether it is a good or bad idea. CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the DOL already can provide notification to victims during the pretrial phase. She said the committee will continue to assess the victim notification process and, if necessary, add additional requirements for the parole and probation phases at some point. SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 7 was adopted. 6:19:58 PM SENATOR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment 8, work order 31- GS1030\U.8, Radford, 4/20/19. AMENDMENT 8 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES TO: CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U" Page 1, line 10: Delete "continue" Insert ", the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Public Safety, make continued" Page 15, line 7: Delete "may [SHALL]" Insert "shall" Page 15, lines 8 - 12: Delete "all hearings except for trial and sentencings [ARRAIGNMENT, PLEAS, AND NON-EVIDENTIARY BAIL REVIEWS IN TRAFFIC AND MISDEMEANOR CASES; AND INITIAL APPEARANCE HEARINGS, NON-EVIDENTIARY BAIL REVIEWS, AND NOT GUILTY PLEA ARRAIGNMENTS IN FELONY CASES]" Insert "arraignment, pleas, and non-evidentiary bail reviews in traffic and misdemeanor cases; and initial appearance hearings, non-evidentiary bail reviews, and not guilty plea arraignments in felony cases" Page 15, lines 13 - 14: Delete "However, with [WITH]" Insert "With" Page 15, line 16, following "cases.": Insert "The court may order a defendant to appear by contemporaneous two-way video conference at any other hearings." SENATOR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes. MR. WHITT explained that the Department of Law (DOL) in conjunction with the Alaska Court System (ACS) requested the language in Amendment 8. These changes relate to videoconferencing for arraignments and pleas. The specific language would read, "It is the intent of the legislature that the Alaska Court System, the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Public Safety make continued efforts to find efficiencies in the criminal justice system and increase the use of contemporaneous two-way video conference for pretrial hearings whenever possible." He referred to the next change on page 15 of Section 25 to amend Court Rule 38.2(b). He reviewed the specific language. The effect would be to expand use of two- way video conferences for arraignment, pleas, and non- evidentiary bail reviews and not guilty plea arraignments in felony cases, unless otherwise ordered for cause stated by the presiding judge. With the defendant's consent, sentencings may be done by video conferences in traffic and misdemeanor cases, he said. The court may also order a defendant to appear by contemporaneous two-way video conference at any other hearings. 6:22:26 PM SENATOR MICCICHE asked Mr. Whitt to clarify the terminology change from "may" to "shall." MR. WHITT referred to page 15, line 7, and read, "In those court locations in which a contemporaneous two-way video conference system has been approved by the supreme court and has been installed, in custody defendants shall appear by way of [contemporaneous two way video conference ?.]" CHAIR HUGHES stated that the language would return to "shall." 6:23:05 PM SENATOR REINBOLD expressed interest in another crime bill, SB 32, that also contains a court rule change. She asked for clarification on whether Court Rule 38.2 will require a two- thirds vote in the Senate for passage. MR. SKIDMORE said the rule says that if the change is substantive, then a two-thirds vote is required. He said he believes this change would require a two-thirds majority vote but he would defer to Ms. Meade. 6:24:25 PM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska Court System, Anchorage, responded that this court rule change would require a two-thirds majority vote. She referred to page 18, lines 15-17, of Version K, which indicates that the court rules will only take effect if those sections receive a two- thirds majority vote from each body as required by the Constitution of the State of Alaska. In response to Senator Reinbold, she said that if sections that require a two-thirds majority vote do not receive it, those sections would not pass, but the remainder of the bill would become law. SENATOR REINBOLD said she was glad to learn the rest of the bill would pass even if the substantive court rule sections did not. SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that Amendment 8 would amend Court Rule 38.2 and rename television to contemporaneous two-way video conference and would insert the provision that the court may order a defendant to appear by two-way video conference at any other hearings. MS. MEADE confirmed that was the change to the court rule. She said that in SB 33, Sections 6-17 have the effect of reverting the language to what the criminal rule currently reads. However, it also adds that the court can order defendants to appear at more hearings by video conference, which was the intent of the bill sponsor, she said. SENATOR KIEHL asked which other hearings would be included. MS. MEADE answered that pretrial criminal hearings can be as simple as a status conference, but also include a number of other hearings that can occur before a trial, including pre- indictment hearings. She said that Amendment 8 would add flexibility for the court to avoid transporting defendants for non-substantive hearings. As previously mentioned, the Alaska Supreme Court is very interested in videoconferencing and this rule prompted the Alaska Court System to work with the Department of Law to develop language amenable to both the department and the court system. 6:27:28 PM SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the changes to Court Rule 38.2 were substantial enough to require a two-thirds majority vote. MS. MEADE responded that it is not whether the change is substantial, but rather if the change is substantive or procedural. She said these court rules are procedural and for the legislature to change them requires a two-thirds majority vote. She offered her belief that the Legislative Legal Services attorney recognized that during the drafting process. 6:29:29 PM SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 8 was adopted. 6:29:48 PM SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report the committee substitute (CS) for SB 33, work order 31-GS1030\U, Version U as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). SENATOR KIEHL objected. 6:30:09 PM A roll call vote was taken. Senators Reinbold, Micciche, and Hughes voted in favor of reporting the CSSB 33, Version U as amended, from committee and Senator Kiehl voted against it. Therefore, the CSSB 33(JUD) was reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee by a 3:1 vote.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
SJR 3 Version A.PDF |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
SJR 3 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
SJR 4 version A.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/27/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
SJR 4 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/27/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
SJR 4 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/27/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
CSSB 33(JUD) Version U.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 33 |
CSSB33 Explanation of Changes from Version M to U.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 33 |
CSSB 33 Amendments.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 33 |
CSSB 34(JUD) Version K.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 34 |
CSSB34 Explanation of Changes from Version U to K.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 34 |
SB 52 Version U.PDF |
HL&C 3/11/2020 3:15:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
SB 52 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 2/11/2020 9:00:00 AM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
SB 52 Sectional Analysis 2.19.19.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
SB 52 Title 4 Bill Summary Changes SB 76 (2018) to SB 52 (2019).pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
|
SB 52 Sectional Analysis v.U.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
SB 52 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 52 |
SB 52 Summary of Proposed Penalties.pdf |
SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |
SB 52 Summary of Goals.pdf |
HL&C 3/9/2020 3:15:00 PM SFIN 2/11/2020 9:00:00 AM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SL&C 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 52 |