Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/2011 06:00 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB80 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 4, 2011
6:05 p.m.
6:05:15 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 6:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
ALSO PRESENT
Ron Shattuck, Staff to Representative Neuman; Anne
Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Brian Judy, Alaska State Liaison, National Rifle
Association; William Pinney, Self; Bob Nelson, Self; Nick
Herrera, Self; Paul Brown, Self, Fairbanks; Quinlan
Steiner, Public Defender, Department of Law
SUMMARY
HB 80-SELF DEFENSE
HB 80 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new indeterminate
note by the Department of Law and previously
published fiscal note: FN1 DPS.
6:05:34 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 80
"An Act relating to self defense in any place where a
person has a right to be."
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed housekeeping.
RON SHATTUCK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, summarized
the legislation. He testified that HB 80 addressed the
concern that the current Alaska statute limited the rights
of individual Alaskan's to adequately defend themselves.
The legislation was crafted in response to constituent
concerns regarding existing state law that specified:
"An individual has a duty to retreat when he or she
knows that it can be achieved safely."
Mr. Shattuck shared that while researching the issue of
individual self-defense it had been discovered that 18
other states shared Alaska's deficiency in clarifying a
citizen's right to self-defense while "in a place where the
individual had a right to be." It had also been found that
the National Rifle Association (NRA) was engaged in
discussions on the topic. The goal of the legislation was
to make clear to individual Alaskans, law enforcement, and
the courts that individuals had the right of self-defense
in any place where they had a right to be. It was also
expected to deter criminals.
Mr. Shattuck explained that under Section 1 of the bill AS
11.81.335(b) was amended to read:
(4) protecting a child or a member of the persons
household; or
(5) in any place where the person has a right to be.
6:08:39 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that Representative Costello was
listed as a prime sponsor of the bill.
BRIAN JUDY, ALASKA STATE LIAISON, NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION (NRA) (via teleconference), testified in strong
support of HB 80. He stated that the legislation would
provide that law abiding individuals had no duty to retreat
from an attack and were justified in using deadly force if
they were in any place they had a legal right to be. He
stated that the bill only applied to a person who had
justification to use deadly force. He stated that existing
Alaska law provided that there was no duty to retreat from
areas such as a home or workplace. However, if a person
knows that they can safely retreat from an encounter
outside of those locations, they are legally required to do
so. He stated the bill did not change the primary
consideration that the use of deadly force must be
justified. He relayed that use of deadly force was
justifiable if a person had the reasonable fear of an
assailant exercising unlawful use of force which would lead
to: death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual
assault, or robbery. He said that existing state law laid
out in what circumstances justification could not be
claimed:
· if the individuals were engaged in mutual combat
· if the individual is the initial aggressor of a
conflict
· if the individual provoked the other's conduct
· if the individual is involved in felonious activity or
gang activity as laid out in the Alaska code
6:13:54 PM
Mr. Judy stated that removing the duty of retreat from
current statute would alter the need for justification for
the use of deadly force. Currently, a person who resists
and aggressor overzealously without the consideration of
retreat would bear the risk of conviction. The bill removes
the retreat provision from the victim, shifting the risk
calculation back to the aggressor. He disputed concerns
that the legislation would encourage unnecessary violence.
He argued that the bill only spoke to cases where the
individual was clearly justified in the use of deadly
force. He relayed that the NRA believed that the "sanctity
of life" arguments were less compelling when the person
killed was committing a violent crime against another
individual. He concluded victims and not criminals should
be protected under the law.
6:16:46 PM
WILLIAM PINNEY, SELF (via teleconference), spoke in favor
of the legislation. He relayed a personal story of road
rage. He stated that during the encounter with what he
considered an enraged, possibly drugged man, he did not
have the option to retreat. The man had produced a wooden
baseball bat and approached him. Mr. Pinney revealed to the
committee that he had a concealed carry permit and had
drawn his weapon. As the man approached his vehicle he
warned the man that he should stay back. The man did not
heed the warning immediately, but eventually retreated. He
believed that the proposed legislation would protect
Alaskans.
Representative Gara pointed out that law currently in place
protected the actions taken by Mr. Pinney.
6:24:53 PM
BOB NELSON, SELF (via teleconference), testified in support
of the legislation. He relayed a personal story involving a
confrontation with a man shouting profanities and making
obscene gestures inside a grocery store. Mr. Nelson had
asked the man to take the behavior outside when the man
attacked Mr. Nelson. As Mr. Nelson tried to retreat the man
struck him multiple times. He suffered a brain injury as a
result of the beating. He said that his victim's rights
were abridged during the court proceedings that had
followed and that he would never retreat in a situation of
that nature again.
6:28:13 PM
NICK HERRERA, SELF (via teleconference), testified in
support of the legislation. He believed that the
legislation would strengthen the rights of victims. He
stressed that the idea of taking a human life should not be
taken lightly. He thought that HB 80 would empower law-
abiding individuals to protect themselves.
6:30:04 PM
Representative Gara wondered if the committee had heard
from the Department of Law (DOL) concerning the issue.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Mr. Shattuck how many emails from
constituents had been received regarding the legislation.
Mr. Shattuck replied that 80 emails had been received.
6:31:19 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, responded
that the department did not have a position on HB 80. She
understood that she had been called to discuss the fiscal
note. She stated that a common misconception of the current
law was that it required a person to make a split second
decision in a high-pressure situation. She explained that
the law only required a citizen to retreat when the person
knew they could do so in perfect safety. She asserted that
the state did not prosecute people who act in self-defense.
Representative Wilson wondered how the outcome of any past
homicide cases would have changed under the new
legislation. Ms. Carpeneti believed that a lot of people
charged with homicide or serious assaults would pursue a
self-defense line of defense; which otherwise would not be
allowed under the current law.
Representative Wilson reminded Ms. Carpeneti that she had
previously testified that HB 80 did not really change how
the department prosecuted self-defense cases under the
current statute. Ms. Carpeneti explained that the law did
not presently require a person to retreat unless the person
believed they could do so in complete safety. She furthered
that the difference was that HB 80 would allow a person to
use deadly force without any duty to retreat, as long as
they were justified in using deadly force. She said that
her perspective as a prosecutor exposed her to people who
did not have the same respect for human life as the general
public. She felt that the legislation would lead to more
people falsely claiming self-defense and that the state
might not be able to disprove the claim beyond a reasonable
doubt.
6:34:52 PM
Representative Wilson noted that the fiscal note listed two
additional full-time employees. She believed that in order
to establish the fiscal note the department must have some
idea of the number of cases that would result from the new
legislation. Ms. Carpeneti responded that the most recent
fiscal note was indeterminate because it was difficult to
determine how much the legislation would cost. She
reiterated that the department thought that more people
would claim self-defense, making prosecutions more
difficult.
Representative Wilson countered that other states were
enacting similar legislation and perhaps the department was
out-of-touch with public opinion.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if being a prosecutor limited a
person's ability to empathize with a victim. Ms. Carpeneti
replied that prosecutors worked regularly with the victims
of crime. She added that in Florida, which had a similar
statue, the legislation had caused additional hearings and
use of resources.
Representative Guttenberg asked if public defenders would
expect an increased workload because of HB 80.
MR. QUINLAN STEINER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEPARTMETN OF LAW,
(via teleconference) thought that the duty to retreat and
the justification to use self-defense were mutually
exclusive. He did not believe that the legislation would
have significant fiscal impact. He believed that the issue
of self-defense was always on the table for debate. Whether
the bill provided additional available defense or not did
not significantly change the outlay of the case. The
legislation arguably took away the state's ability to
charge under certain circumstances, but he did not think
that the fiscal impact would be significant.
Co-Chair Stoltze stressed that ambiguity in the law was an
additional burden for a victim. He asked whether there
would be less work if self-defense cases were not
prosecuted. Mr. Steiner replied that he could not predict
one way or the other the fiscal impact of the legislation.
6:42:39 PM
PAUL BROWN, SELF, FAIRBANKS, (via teleconference) testified
in support of HB 80.
6:44:02 PM
Representative Doogan queried the full meaning of the
language found on page 2, line 3 of the bill, "in any place
where the person has a right to be".
Mr. Shattuck explained:
"If you were walking across a parking lot in a public
place, from the mall with a handful of groceries, and
it was late at night, you had a right to be there. It
is a public place. In the middle of an open parking
lot where there was no cover, perhaps, it was
unreasonable to suspect that you could reasonably
retreat. You would have to stand your ground and
protect yourself."
Mr. Shattuck concluded that the definition typically
referred to places that were public or to a place where the
individual had been invited.
6:48:21 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the response had satisfied
Representative Doogan.
Representative Doogan replied no.
Representative Doogan stated that the language, if not a
term of law, was subject to interpretation. He argued that
he would need to know how the language would most commonly
be interpreted in order to fully understand what would
happen under the legislation.
Ms. Carpeneti summarized that the department interpreted
the language as; and individual had the right to be
anywhere as long as they were not trespassing. She added if
an individual was trespassing on someone's land uninvited
they would have a duty to retreat.
Representative Doogan asked how the language applied to the
public domain. Ms. Carpeneti responded that the public
domain belonged to everyone, so everyone had the right to
be there. Under HB 80 a person would not be required to
retreat while in a public park, even if they could do so
with complete safety to themselves and others.
Representative Guttenberg understood that the bill gave
people the right to defend themselves regardless of where
they were. Ms. Carpeneti replied in the affirmative.
Representative Guttenberg said that the bill simply removed
a split-second decision that a person would probably not
have the time to make anyway. Ms. Carpeneti stated that the
current law did not require a person to make that split-
second decision unless it was known that the person could
retreat in complete safety. The legislation under
discussion in committee allowed the individual not to
retreat even if it could be done safely.
6:53:06 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked if the bill would have
changed the outcome of the Big Lake, Alaska case in which
Pastor Phillip Mielke was acquitted after he shot and
killed two intruders as they ran away from his church.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the case was a point of concern
and was worth discussing. Mr. Mielke had been in a place
that he had a right to be in and had no duty to retreat.
However, the assailants were running away. She did not
believe that the legislation would have made a difference
in that particular case.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered whether the attitudes of the
prosecutors would have been affected if HB 80 had been the
statute at the time of the trial. Ms. Carpeneti replied the
question should be presented to the prosecutors who worked
on that particular case.
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered about incidents of road
rage. She wondered whether a person driving recklessly on a
public road, as in the situation relayed by Mr. Pinney,
should be subject to the use of physical force.
Ms. Carpeneti admitted that that situation was a tough one
to wrap her head around. She said that the bad driver would
have the right to be on a public street but not the right
to commit a traffic infraction.
Vice-chair Fairclough voiced support for the legislation.
6:57:58 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted the zero FN1: DPS and the new
indeterminate fiscal note from DOL.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
6:59:14 PM
Representative Costello MOVED to report HB 80 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 80 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a new indeterminate note by the
Department of Law and previously published fiscal note: FN1
DPS.
7:00:05 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB80 NEW FN-LAW-CRIM-03-25-11.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2011 6:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 Support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2011 6:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |