Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
04/13/2016 08:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HJR14 | |
| HB126 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 126-CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE; APPEALS
8:26:52 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE announced the consideration of HB 126.
8:27:16 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee meeting.
8:27:28 AM
CHRISTOPHER WEAVER, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), Staff Judge
Advocate, Alaska National Guard, Office of the
Commissioner/Adjutant General, Department of Military and
Veterans' Affairs, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska,
reviewed his testimony from a previous Senate State Affairs
committee meeting regarding HB 126 that addressed the following:
· History and basic need for an Alaska Code of Military
Justice (ACMJ) for the State of Alaska.
· Alaska is one of a few states that does not have an ACMJ.
· Commanders including Adjutant General Hummel explained the
reason why ACMJ was needed.
· Article 15, non-judicial punishment and the no-turndown
provision.
· Concurrent offenses on both the civilian and military side.
· Some offenses were civilian-like, but many of the civilian-
like offenses affect a unit's good order and discipline.
· Alaska National Guard's jurisdiction.
· Non-judicial punishment.
· Different levels each commander has, from company, field
grade, and general officer going up the chain.
· Maximum sentences listed in HB 126 for different sentences.
8:30:02 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Ms. Meade to address the committee.
8:30:53 AM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS),
Anchorage, Alaska, revealed that her involvement in the bill was
limited to the court-martial process. She noted that a defendant
has the right to petition to the Supreme Court for final
actions.
CHAIR STOLTZE opined that ACS was jealous of the Alaska Judicial
Council's process where the Legislature confirms members. He
asked if ACS was softening on the issue.
MS. MEADE asked Chair Stoltze to confirm that he was referring
to the governor appointing members of the Military Appeals
Commission that was confirmed by the Legislature.
CHAIR STOLTZE replied yes and noted that there was a judicial
component.
MS. MEADE asserted that the Military Appeals confirmation
process was not something that concerned ACS. She remarked that
there were many administrative law judges in the office of
hearing appeals within the executive branch that do not go
through the Alaska Judicial Council.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked if administrative law judges go through the
Alaska Judicial Council.
MS. MEADE answered no.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Ms. Meade to corroborate that none of the
administrative law judges go through the Alaska Judicial
Council.
MS. MEADE replied that unless she was mistaken, no.
CHAIR STOLTZE responded that he believes that the administrative
appeals judges go through the Alaska Judicial Council.
8:32:32 AM
MS. MEADE said the Alaska Judicial Council deals with the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court, and the
District Court judges.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if ACS had a position on HB 126.
MS. MEADE answered no. She specified that she worked with the
sponsor and the officers to ensure that the procedures that do
involve the court system was workable. She detailed that the
only thing that touches ACS were the grand jury requirement and
the cases going to the Supreme Court.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Ms. Meade to verify that a disagreement with
an administrative or regulatory decision could be appealed to
the Superior Court.
MS. MEADE answered yes. She summarized that an Alaskan National
Guard member could go through the following process:
· Court-martial trial;
· Appeal to the Military Appeals Commission;
· Petition for hearing to the Supreme Court for a final
decision only if the purposed punishment by the Military
Appeals Commission involved incarceration.
She pointed out that the Alaska National Guard's appeal process
was similar to a criminal trial where a person has the right to
appeal to the Court of Appeals and if dissatisfied, the right to
petition for hearing to the Supreme Court.
8:34:39 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that SB 91, [the crime reform bill co-
sponsored by Senator Coghill], would reclassify a lot of
offenses and penalties. He asked if Ms. Meade had constitutional
concerns from SB 91 regarding penalties, sanctions, or offenses.
MS. MEADE replied that she was not sure what issues will arise.
She pointed out that the court never has touched military
offenses before. She said the few cases that are a result of SB
91 will be new to the Supreme Court.
CHAIR STOLTZE explained that his intent was to see if SB 91 does
interplay with HB 126.
8:36:16 AM
SENATOR COGHILL suggested that a side-by-side study be done with
penalties in SB 91 and HB 126. He noted that the penalties in HB
126 were consistently lower than current and proposed civilian
penalties in SB 91. He added that double-jeopardy and deference
between military and civilian courts need to be addressed as
well.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked LTC. WEAVER to confirm that the
civilian court system would have jurisdiction first.
LTC. WEAVER replied that civilian courts would have jurisdiction
over civilian offenses, not military offenses.
8:38:49 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that HB 126 had lesser
penalties for some of the civilian crimes. He asked LTC. WEAVER
to verify that a civilian court would first decide whether to
assert their jurisdiction for a crime and then the military
would have an opportunity to decide.
LTC. WEAVER answered correct.
MS. MEADE noted that the civilian courts do not exactly assert
jurisdiction. She explained that the Department of Law decides
whether to file a case with ACS.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI reiterated that the civilian court first
determines whether or not a case should be filed and the person
charged with the crime cannot choose between a civilian or
military court.
MS. MEADE concurred with Senator Wielechowski.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI opined that double jeopardy should not be
an issue. He asked LTC. WEAVER to confirm that a person
convicted in a civilian court would take away the right of the
military court and vice versa.
LTC. WEAVER concurred with Senator Wielechowski and noted that
as long as the elements match for the particular crime.
MS. MEADE pointed out that the bill has a jeopardy clause that
says jeopardy attaches through one of the proceedings.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked LTC. WEAVER to confirm that very
rarely would a civilian court not investigate and press charges
for a serious crime like assault, rapes, or murders where the
case ends up in military court.
8:41:40 AM
LTC. WEAVER concurred with Senator Wielechowski.
MS. MEADE agreed with Senator Wielechowski. She pointed out that
Senator Wielechowski's deduction was the reason for the zero-
fiscal note due to the expectation for very few cases.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked LTC. WEAVER to confirm that military
cases like "absent without leave" (AWOL), deserting your post,
and being insubordinate to a commanding officer were not covered
by Alaska statutes and would go before the military tribunal.
LTC. WEAVER answered correct.
8:42:50 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE closed public testimony on HB 126.
8:43:36 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE recessed the meeting to a call of the chair.
[The committee did not reconvene so HB 126 was held in
committee.]