03/04/2022 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB11 | |
| HB5 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 4, 2022
1:05 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Liz Snyder, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative David Eastman
Representative Christopher Kurka
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 11(JUD)
"An Act relating to community property and to community property
trusts; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 5
"An Act relating to sexual abuse of a minor; relating to sexual
assault; relating to the code of military justice; relating to
consent; relating to the testing of sexual assault examination
kits; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 11
SHORT TITLE: COMMUNITY PROPERTY TRUSTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) BEGICH
01/22/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/22/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/21 (S) L&C, JUD
03/10/21 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/10/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/12/21 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/12/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/21 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/19/21 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/19/21 (S) Moved SB 11 Out of Committee
03/19/21 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/22/21 (S) L&C RPT 4DP
03/22/21 (S) DP: COSTELLO, GRAY-JACKSON, STEVENS,
HOLLAND
05/05/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/05/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/05/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/10/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/10/21 (S) Moved CSSB 11(JUD) Out of Committee
05/10/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/11/21 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 2NR SAME TITLE
05/11/21 (S) DP: HOLLAND, HUGHES, KIEHL
05/11/21 (S) NR: MYERS, SHOWER
05/17/21 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/17/21 (S) VERSION: CSSB 11(JUD)
05/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/18/21 (H) L&C, JUD
02/02/22 (H) L&C AT 5:15 PM BARNES 124
02/02/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/02/22 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/14/22 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/14/22 (H) Moved CSSB 11(JUD) Out of Committee
02/14/22 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/16/22 (H) L&C RPT 5DP 2NR
02/16/22 (H) DP: SNYDER, MCCARTY, SCHRAGE,
SPOHNHOLZ, FIELDS
02/16/22 (H) NR: NELSON, KAUFMAN
02/25/22 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/25/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/25/22 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/04/22 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 5
SHORT TITLE: SEXUAL ASSAULT; DEF. OF "CONSENT"
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
03/26/21 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/26/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/26/21 (H) STA, JUD
03/27/21 (H) STA AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/27/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/13/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/13/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/20/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/20/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/20/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/27/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/27/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/27/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/29/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/29/21 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/04/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/04/21 (H) Moved CSSSHB 5(STA) Out of Committee
05/04/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/21 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 1DP 5AM
05/06/21 (H) DP: TARR
05/06/21 (H) AM: VANCE, STORY, EASTMAN, KAUFMAN,
KREISS-TOMKINS
05/06/21 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/04/22 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented CSSSHB 5(STA).
BRIAN HOSKEN, Student Services Director
Alaska School Activities Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 5.
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 5.
JENNIFER BROWN, Communications and Development Director
Standing Together Against Rape
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 5.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
5.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:52 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Claman, Drummond,
and Kreiss-Tomkins (via teleconference) were present at the call
to order. Representatives Eastman, Kurka, Vance, and Snyder
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 11-COMMUNITY PROPERTY TRUSTS
1:06:34 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 11(JUD), "An Act relating to community
property and to community property trusts; and providing for an
effective date."
1:06:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on CSSB 11(JUD). After
ascertaining there was no one who wished to testify, he closed
public testimony. [CSSB 11 (JUD) was heard and held.]
HB 5-SEXUAL ASSAULT; DEF. OF "CONSENT"
1:07:36 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 5, "An Act relating to
sexual abuse of a minor; relating to sexual assault; relating to
the code of military justice; relating to consent; relating to
the testing of sexual assault examination kits; and providing
for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSSSHB
5(STA).]
1:08:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented CSSSHB 5(STA). She drew attention to the
presentation entitled, "HB 5 PowerPoint Presentation HJUD
3.4.2022.pdf," [included in the committee packet] slide 2, and
explained that in 2019, the board of the organization Standing
Together Against Rape (STAR) had brought its legislative
priorities forward and requested an update to the definition of
[sexual] consent, updates to the sexual abuse of a minor
statute, and to address the matter of rape by fraud. She
explained the four-year process depicted on slide 2, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
4 year process
Multiple statewide meetings with input from across
Alaska over 2 years (2019,2020), bill introduced in
2021
Expert interviews, expert team for developing
proposal (combined 60 plus years of experience with
sexual assault crimes in Alaska), feedback from
Department of Law
Presented at statewide meeting of [the Alaska Network
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault] ANDVSA
More than 100 Alaskans contributed to the drafting of
this bill
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that there had been received to date
more than 66 letters of support including nine organizations
such as the Alaska School Activities Association, STAR, the
National Association of Social Workers, the ANDVSA, Planned
Parenthood Great Northwest, the Alaska Coalition for Justice,
Joyful Heart, and Aiding Women in Abuse and Rape Emergencies
(AWARE,) among others.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that all the public forums had begun
with the question of, "has consent ever been an issue for you?"
She noted that every participant in every forum had answered
that it had. She noted that participants were diverse and
included males, females, the young, the old, rural residents,
and urban residents. She stated that there had emerged a
statement that characterized rape as "a murder where the victim
lives," which she asserted underscored the need for reform to
sexual assault statutes. She explained that there were four
main parts of the bill. She explained that the first part would
require that rape kits be tested within six months; the second
would be an update to the 40-year-old definition of consent; the
third part would update the statute to include a "rape by fraud"
or "rape by deception" to the criminal statute; and finally, the
fourth part of the bill would address predatory behavior of much
older adults in relationships with much younger minors.
1:12:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the last part of HB 5 was the
conclusion of the rape test kit reform initiative and was the
last piece of a multi-year, rape kit reform process. She read
from slide 8, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Last piece of multi-year Rape Kit Reform Initiative
Accomplishments:
Ongoing audit of backlog of rape kits Testing of
backlog of rape kits
Secure storage of rape kits
Victim centered approach
Training for law enforcement for sexual assault
response
Created a timeline for rape kit processing within 30
days of collection be sent to crime lab, tested within
1 year, and survivor be notified within 14 days
REPRESENTATIVE TARR drew attention to slide 9 of the
presentation, which depicted news stories that highlighted
criminal convictions that had followed the testing of the
backlog of rape kits in the state. She stated that the
importance of the 6-month timeline for testing of rape kits was
significant and offered an example from one of the news stories
that detailed the conviction of a perpetrator from cases in 1993
and in 2001, for which victims had awaited decades for justice.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that it had been reported that some of
the untested rape kits in Alaska had dated back to the 1980s.
She stated that the 6-month time limit would ensure that the
state never again has a backlog of untested rape kits. She
noted that in December of 2021, more than 3400 kits had been
processed.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained the proposed update to the
definition of consent, and read from slide 12, entitled "Without
consent?," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Alaska Stat. ? 11.41.470
"Without consent" means that a person:
(A) with or without resisting, is coerced by the use
of force against a person or property, or by the
express or implied threat of death, imminent physical
injury, or kidnapping to be inflicted on anyone; or
(B) is incapacitated as a result of an act of the
defendant.
PROBLEMATIC FOR MANY REASONS:
1. Not an affirmative definition
2. Suggests use of force
3. Places burden on victim
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that research had been conducted
regarding laws in other states, and next drew attention to
slides 13 and 14, and explained that the underlined text was
that of more modernized statutes among laws in the State of
Minnesota and the State of Montana.
1:16:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR then read from slide 15, entitled "Themes in
modernized statutes," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Affirmative definition
Freely given
Agreement
Reversible
Words and actions
Previous social or dating relationship does not
suggest consent
Language that represents all trauma responses: fight,
flight, or freeze
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that updated language would remove the
"use of force" requirement to allow for trauma [based] responses
including the "fight, flight, or freeze" behaviors. She stated
that other states have been reviewing and updating uniform
legislation [related to sexual assault] by considering what had
been learned singe legislation, as old as 50 years, had been
drafted. She stated that the new definition of consent was
listed on slide 16, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
"consent" means a freely given, reversible agreement
specific to the conduct at issue; in this paragraph,
"freely given" means agreement to cooperate in the act
was positively expressed by word or action.
1:18:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR next drew attention to slide 18, which
explained the concept of rape by fraud, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Concept: An action whereby a person obtains sexual
consent and has sexual intercourse of any type by
fraud, deception, misrepresentation, or impersonation.
? 12 states currently have specific language
? 10 have language that says consent does not apply if
"it is induced by force, duress, or deception."
? Laws in Tennessee and Texas specifically use the
term "fraud."
? Federal law addresses "professional purpose" one
component
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the USA Gymnastics sex abuse
scandal as an example of the "professional purpose" language in
federal statute.
1:20:22 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:21:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR played a video hyperlink that appeared on
slide 19 of the presentation that depicted an example of rape by
fraud, of which the perpetrator had been acquitted due to no
legal recourse for the victim to pursue. She explained that
Alaska has a similar [legal] problem and she continued the video
for the committee.
1:24:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that Alaska has a definition of rape
like those which had been described in the video, which were
with the use of force, when an individual is unconscious or
unaware that sex is happening, and when a person is disabled to
the extent that he/she may not provide consent. She noted that
twelve other states had changed their laws. She shared with the
committee that testimony had been offered at the House State
Affairs Standing Committee in which an individual had a sexual
interaction with a stranger who she believed to be her husband
and who had entered her home. She expressed her hope that the
committee would come to an agreement regarding the concept of
rape by fraud. She noted that there is an update to the
universal code and that the code had called for justice for
victims of rape by fraud.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the fourth component in the
bill would address predatory behavior of much older adults in
relationships with much younger minors. She drew attention to a
chart on slide 21 of the presentation. She noted that the legal
age of consent was 16, and sex occurs [legally] with another
individual whose age is no more than four years senior to the
16-year-old. She noted that individuals over the age of 18, as
adults, may engage in sexual activity with any other adult, with
consent. She noted that the bill would address much older
adults having sexual interactions with much younger individuals.
She stated that a 10-year age gap had been selected for the
language of the bill. She explained that stakeholders including
advocates had offered that they had observed an increase in
behavior that they would characterize as predatory. She noted
that there had been a case involving [former Alaska Attorney
General] Ed Sniffen in which it was alleged that he had had
sexual contact with a 17-year-old when he was the age of 27.
She stated that the matter of sex trafficking would be addressed
in this component of the bill, and that STAR had reported much
older individuals attending high-school parties to seek out
younger individuals. She stated that the responsibility would
shift to the much older adult to be aware of the age difference
legal requirement that would exist in the case of a large age
gap.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that younger individuals may be more
vulnerable and [lack the skills of] decision making. She noted
that male or female teachers may have sexual relationships with
students, and that circumstance would be the only case in which
the behavior was criminal due to the current statute prohibiting
sexual activity between a younger person and a person in a
position of authority over the younger person. She noted that
among 13-, 14-, and 15-year-olds, grooming behaviors had been
observed to have happened when an older adult may have been
aware of the law and created a relationship with the younger
person by the use of gifts and other offerings.
1:30:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that a former Alaska State Legislative
staff member had been more than 10 years older than [the victim]
and had provided alcohol and engaged in sexual activity with the
younger person. She stated that STAR had recognized the
prohibition of grooming as one of its legislative priorities.
She stated that she was certain that there would be general
agreement that a 30-year-old attending a high school party would
be cause for concern. She noted that another concern would be
the lifelong damage that may occur to a victim, such as that
which had been described by the victim in the Sniffen case, who
came forward as an adult. She noted that there exist cultural
and societal norms to be considered. She stated that she would
encourage healthy relationships and the law could be used to
prevent harmful relationships or harm to people. She drew
attention to slide 23, which showed a chart depicting proposed
sentencing requirements for the new categorization of crime.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR next drew attention to slide 24, which
contained the sectional analysis. She stated that effective
dates may need to be adjusted. She stated that objective
outcomes for the passage of the bill would be that, when someone
is harming Alaskans, they should be removed from society to
prevent him/her from harming others. She noted that, when
prosecution fails to prosecute crimes, [perpetrators] learn that
they may get away with the behavior and victimize others. She
stated her hope that the conversation would include
rehabilitative work and treatment for sex offenders. She stated
that another objective outcome would be to educate Alaskans
regarding consent and create cultural change. She stated that
when the criminal justice system is involved in a case, it is
responding to harm that has taken place. She stated that her
office had been contacted by hundreds of Alaskans sharing
various stories that she described as ranging from devastating
to inspiring stories of overcoming difficulties. She stated
that these situations create a ripple effect that impacts an
individual's mental health, families, and employment.
1:35:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that she had learned that, in smaller
communities in particular, survivors had difficulty in living
day-to-day life out of fear of encountering a perpetrator in the
community. She stated her hope to create change in both the
response to, and the prevention of, such crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR drew attention to slide 26 which depicted
the desired outcomes, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Want 2 outcomes
Remove dangerous people from our communities for an
appropriate amount of time and with access to sex
offender treatment to prevent them from harming others
Fails to prevent harm this responds to harm
Educate Alaskans about consent and change the culture
around sexual violence to prevent harm from happening
REPRESENTATIVE TARR drew attention to slide 29, which depicted
questions to be answered, and encouraged the committee to focus
on the proposed sentencing requirements and the application of
the proposed statute. She noted that there were fiscal notes
associated with the bill that would require additional funding,
should the bill pass.
1:37:55 PM
BRIAN HOSKEN, Student Services Director, Alaska School
Activities Association, testified in support of HB 5. He
informed the committee that he is a former Anchorage School
District administrator with nearly 30 years of experience
overseeing comprehensive academics and activity/athletic
programs. Currently, his primary role at the Alaska School
Activities Association (ASAA) is to facilitate the Coaching Boys
into Men (CBIM) program. He relayed that CBIM is an evidence-
based comprehensive violence prevention program designed to
inspire coaches to teach their athletes the importance of
respect for themselves, others, and particularly for women and
girls. The program incorporates strategies, scenarios, and
resources needed to talk with boys specifically about healthy
and respectful relationships, dating violence, sexual assault,
and harassment. Additionally, CBIM recognized that sports are
tremendously influential on culture and the lives of young
people and had been designed to utilize and leverage the social
capital held by athletes. He opined that the principles of
teamwork and fair play, which are central to athletics, make
sports an ideal platform to teach healthy relationship skills.
He continued to explain that he trains coaches to teach a
curriculum designed for a 12-week sports season in which weekly
training lessons are presented from the coach to the athletes.
These weekly teaching sessions include topics such as personal
responsibility, insulting language, and understanding consent.
He noted that he looks forward to further developing the
definition of consent, adding that within the CBIM objective,
consent is discussed regarding respecting personal boundaries in
intimate/sexual activities; furthermore, CBIM objects to the use
of pressure, threats, or force in any physical or sexual
encounter and actively opposes incidents of rape, sexual
coercion, and assault. He offered his belief that this bill
would further define and help this teaching component. He went
on to discuss the program goals specifically developed for
Alaska by ASAA. He said that many of the topics incorporated by
CBIM and HB 5 mutually validate the need for a preventative
educational component and accountability for perpetrators. He
opined that the clarification and affirmative definition of
consent in this legislation would strengthen the scholastic
elements of CBIM. To conclude, he said he looks forward to the
opportunity to employ a passed HB 5 in coordination with a
statewide implementation of CBIM to further education Alaska's
youth with the objective of eradicating violence towards women.
He invited committee members to attend a coaching session at the
local school.
1:42:00 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, testified in support of HB 5. She
stated that the content of the bill had been in progress for
over 25 years and is now at the forefront to address the
challenges against victims coming forward to report assault.
She stated that the legal definition of sexual assault has left
many victims of assault being told that what they experienced
was not a crime. She expressed that there exist difficulties in
aiding victims who wish to report a rape who are told that the
alleged assault does not have the legal components to prosecute
the behavior as a crime. She stated that the victim's body is
what is used to prove the elements of such a crime when force is
the mechanism used to prosecute crimes of sexual assault. She
noted that juries are often shown intimate pictures and images
of a victim's body to try to demonstrate the use of force had
occurred. She stated that the proposed change to the definition
of consent aligns more with her understanding of the actual
meaning of consent and aligns with the principles of what youth
in Alaska are being taught regarding consent. She noted that
the video presented earlier was an example of the manner in
which these crimes occur and was not representative of solely
one person's experience. She stated that STAR had received many
reports of concerns from parents regarding their child's sexual
involvement with a much older person and expressed concerns
regarding sex trafficking and grooming. She stated that STAR
staff are left to inform families that there exists no legal
protection in those situations. She added that delays in rape
kit testing negatively affects victims sharing small communities
with his/her assailant while awaiting results. She asked the
committee to consider the content of HB 5 to address the high
rates of sexual assault and further increase the reporting and
prosecution of such crimes in Alaska.
1:45:34 PM
JENNIFER BROWN, Communications and Development Director,
Standing Together Against Rape, testified in support of HB 5.
She explained that STAR was founded in 1978 and existed as a 24-
hour crisis intervention organization including a response team.
She added that STAR provides advocacy during court proceedings
and medical examinations of rape victims. She stated that, when
a sexual assault occurs, an "avalanche" of other things occurs
in a victim's life while he/she tries to cope with the assault
while maintaining his/her personal safety and employment. She
added that STAR also performs education and advocacy activities
in the community and had offered age-appropriate school
curricula for the Anchorage School District pertaining to
personal safety, healthy relationships, identifying predatory
behavior, and how to identify sources of assistance through
available resources. She noted that STAR also provides adult
educational programs for the workplace to educate on sexual
harassment. She stated that victims often are laden with a
burden of proof following a sexual assault. She asked the
committee to consider why these proposed changes should not
become law.
1:49:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked how long similar legislation had
been in place in other states and whether those changes had
resulted in a difference.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that there had been differences
ascertained following the passage of similar legislation in
other states regardless of how long the legislation had been in
place. She noted that, in Alaska, a jury trial may take up to
two years to prosecute such crimes. She stated that the
prevention and education aspects of new laws had produced
positive results.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the tables in the
presentation depicting the proposed ages of consenting
relationships and asked whether there existed an age below which
an individual may not be prosecuted for sexual assault.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR sexual assault of a minor occurs when the
victim is under the age of 18, and all others would be
prosecuted under the sexual assault statute.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a five-year-old could be
prosecuted for sexual abuse of a minor.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR deferred to the Department of Law to provide
an answer.
1:53:24 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, to Representative Eastman's question, stated
that the Department of Law (DOL) seeks to identify an age gap to
determine whether sexual assault of a minor has occurred. She
noted that there exists a provision of law in which an
individual under the age of 16 engages in sexual penetration of
a minor under the age of 13. She stated that if a minor is
below the ages of 16 and 13, there could be a crime. She stated
that the Division of Juvenile Justice does not prosecute
juveniles as young as 5 years of age and, while the behavior may
be considered disturbing, resources may be sought outside of the
criminal juvenile justice system to address those concerns.
1:54:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what the relationship of offender
to victim would be for those under the age of 13.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked, in the case of a 17-year-old offender and a
13-year-old victim, whether that would be a crime.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that it would be sexual abuse of a minor
in the second degree.
CHAIR CLAMAN whether the juvenile court would handle the case
involving a 17-year-old offender and whether that would be
"waivable.". He explained that "waivable" means that the
offender could be treated as an adult.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the scenario described would be
subject to an automatic waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER expressed that she understood the first
three components of the bill and asked whether the approach
taken regarding older adults and minors as proposed in the bill
had been undertaken elsewhere and what impacts may have
occurred.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that, through collaboration with
the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), reports had
been obtained that reflected states that had imposed both 7-year
and 10-year restrictions on age gaps. She stated that the 10-
year age difference had been decided in light of cultural
considerations such as existing relationships among different
aged high schoolers. She stated that the 10-year gap was
selected also due to those individuals having very different
lifestyles and stages of development. She noted that
Legislative Legal & Research Services had provided its own
research to support the 10-year gap.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER expressed her interest in learning more on
the topic and to review reports and documents.
1:59:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for additional background
information.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that research had been conducted
regarding the wording of laws that either work in a trial
setting or those which do not, and that care should be taken to
incorporate language that would work at trial. She stated that
there exists the Uniform Penal Code and a review of statutes and
reports that had been produced that demonstrated changes in
thinking about laws in existence for more than 50 years.
2:01:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there were additional anticipated
changes to the proposed bill other than changes to the effective
dates.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that DOL was working with her
office regarding consent language. She stated that new language
had been contemplated that retained the provisions of freely
given, reversable, and specific [consent].
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Representative Tarr was prepared to
offer her position on the proposed changes to the language in
the bill that is anticipated from DOL.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered that her main objective was that the
use of force should not be the main component of consent. She
added that other states retain the use of force as an element of
assault and the use of force in an assault would amount to a
higher level of crime.
2:04:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether Representative Tarr had data
on changes in prosecutions for states in which similar changes
to the law had taken place.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that she did not have such data and
noted that some of the changes had been recent and the data that
did exist pertained to education and prevention efforts. She
added that sexual assault crimes are typically difficult to
prosecute since the crime occurs with few witnesses and
typically among two people. She stated her hope that the new
law would reflect societal and cultural expectations around
behaviors and consent.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether grooming behavior is a
crime in the absence of a sexual assault. He suggested that an
individual who had been subject to grooming may be "brainwashed"
and unable to offer consent.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR allowed that the behavior of grooming was a
consideration in drafting the bill, and that the providing of
gifts [to a minor] was not criminal behavior.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that providing alcohol and drugs as gifts [to
a minor] would be a crime.
MS. SCHROEDER added that grooming behavior is not illegal. She
stated that there exists a struggle to determine what is
predatory behavior due to grooming behavior commencing with that
such as the giving of gifts. She stated that the distribution
of indecent materials would be categorized as a crime. She
noted that sexual abuse of a minor is not subject to the
provision of consent.
2:09:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN postulated that rape by fraud could be
compared with a lack of informed consent comparable to that
required for medical procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that other states had included
affirmative consent. She stated that the State of Washington
had produced a report that rape by fraud is perpetrated along
six general areas with some overlap. She listed those to be
fraudulent treatment, sexual impersonation, sexual scams, sexual
theft, abuse of authority, and sexual extortion. She added that
the least likely to occur is that of sexual impersonation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for what information is required by
law to be provided prior to a sexual encounter, such as one's
Human Immunovirus (HIV) status.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that there is no legal requirement for an
individual to provide specific information before engaging in a
sex act.
2:11:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether any problems had emerged since the
requirement imposing a one-year timeline for testing of rape
kits under previous legislation had been enacted.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that the crime lab had reported
that the ordinary timeline for the testing of rape kits was more
than 2 years. She stated that the lab had requested an
incremental shortening of the timeline from two years to one
year to accommodate the need for additional staffing. She
stated that the testing involves highly trained professionals
including specialized professional training and certifications.
She stated that the change from one year to six months would
require additional resources identified in the associated fiscal
note. She offered that the lab had identified the "gold
standard" of testing to be 90 days, and that no additional
resources would be required for the lab to work to further that
standard, following the passage of HB 5.
2:14:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether any prosecutions in which DOL was
unable to get a rape test kit tested timely for trial.
MS. SCHROEDER offered her understanding that, should an active
prosecution exist, the case is assigned a higher priority for
testing at the lab, and that, while delays in testing may occur,
it did not amount to a detriment to prosecution of such cases.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether DOL held a position on the change
from a one-year requirement to that of six months.
MS. SCHROEDER expressed that DOL was supportive of the change.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked what position DOL would take on an inclusion
in the proposed law to incrementally adopt a 90-day requirement
for the testing of rape kits, over a certain timeframe.
MS. SCHROEDER stated that DOL would not take a position on
requirements imposed on the Department of Public Safety.
2:15:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered that the timeline of testing kits
was of importance to the individual awaiting results. She added
that there exist cases in which the identity of the perpetrator
may not be known.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether a distinction between rural and urban
locations pertained to the timing of testing results, to which
Representative Tarr affirmed that it did.
2:17:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked for a description of the process of
rape kit testing.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that evidence is collected with a
rape test kit from the victim and from the perpetrator. She
noted that there did not exist trained laboratory staff in
Alaska and processing of kits had previously occurred outside of
Alaska and the increase of resources for the crime lab allowed
kits to be processed in state. She added that increase in crime
lab resources benefitted the prosecution of other crimes, such
as those of homicide. She added that that the genetic
information, once processed, is entered into the federal
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database to compare with other
crimes that may have occurred. She suggested the movie
entitled, "I Am Evidence" to ascertain additional information on
the collection of evidence and identifying perpetrators across
jurisdictions.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked what percentage of rape kits are
tested when the identity of the perpetrator is not known.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that the percentage in question is
not known.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the rape test kit consisted solely of
evidence gathered at the time of a medical rape exam of a victim
as a matter of general parlance.
MS. SCHROEDER cautioned that, to answer, she would need to
consider how the question pertained to the proposed bill but
offered confirmation that there exists a "suspect kit" to test a
suspect.
2:22:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR restated that the percentage of cases in
which the subject is not identified is unknown. She stated that
previous legislation had been conceived with a victim-centered
approach. She explained that biological evidence of a sexual
assault should be collected within 72 hours of the crime, and
the victim is unable to shower or change clothing prior to
testing. She added that a policy exists by which a victim who
is comfortable engaging with law enforcement will file a report,
and an alternative exists by which evidence may be collected and
stored, and an anonymous reporting of the crime to law
enforcement within a certain period may be filed.
2:24:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked the process for compelling collection
of evidence from an accused person.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that DOL may broadly explain considerations
regarding the fourth amendment and probable cause.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that a warrant would be required based on
the existence of probable cause to collect biological evidence.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that law enforcement may request for an
individual's consent to collect evidence in the absence of a
warrant.
MS. SCHROEDER confirmed that those cases may occur, and that DOL
would seek a warrant regardless.
2:26:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether rape kit evidence could
consist of evidence collected from a crime scene and not solely
from a victim's body.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that [evidence collected from a crime
scene] would be evidence in the case and that rape kits exist to
collect evidence from a person's body and involve an extensive
process.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that her office has [an unused] rape
test kit for interested parties to examine that includes a
sealable box, gloves, swabs, and instructions. She noted that
some communities have a Sexual Assault Response Team (SART), or
Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO), and some communities do
not. She stated that there previously did not exist a tracking
system for rape test kits.
2:29:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked who is qualified to collect
evidence in a rape kit, and what would occur in a community in
which no such qualified person exists.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the preferred option would be a
medical professional to collect the evidence. She noted that
communities with no such medically trained personnel, a law
enforcement officer, VPSO, or community health aide may collect
evidence.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND postulated that, in rural communities,
the need would exist for an unused rape test kit to be available
in a community, and that a victim would need to know which
person would be qualified in the community to proceed. She
asked whether the collection of evidence could be remotely
supervised by a health care professional via telehealth. She
expressed concerns that would impact the investigation would
include trained personnel, community resources, and
communications infrastructure, among others.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR allowed that Representative Drummond had
answered her own initial question with the concerns she had
expressed, and that security would be of importance in the rural
communities. She noted that judicial proceedings were more
frequently conducted remotely than in the past, but those cases
usually involved individuals already in custody. She noted that
SARTs consist of a law enforcement officer, a victim's advocate,
and a forensic nurse, and that a victim may share his/her story
in one interview with the entire team, rather than several
interviews to recount the story. She invited Ms. Stanfill to
add to her answer.
MS. STANFILL added that ANDVSA had coordinated with the National
Council on Sexual Assault to address the concerns expressed in
the current line of questioning. She explained that a women's
coalition in Bethel had obtained equipment and additional
funding to support telehealth and training. She added that
telehealth did occur and had been limited due to broadband
access.
2:34:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND estimated that 38 villages exist for
which Bethel is the hub and asked whether victims could rely on
support from his/her community health aide and additional
support from Bethel.
MS. STANFILL answered that six such communities have rolled out
support for victims of sexual assault, and that equipment costs
had had a negative impact on establishing the same in other
communities. She added that the process of selection had been
based on communities in which there existed a community health
aide.
2:35:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the video that had been
offered earlier in the presentation and asked whether the
language in the proposed bill, including "inducement" would
address the scenario portrayed in the video.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR concurred that "inducement" was included,
and that the language continued such that, "concealment that the
offender is another person based on the offender's real
identity," that would address the specific behavior. She noted
that the language to be included in the bill was of importance
and encouraged understanding of the concept of rape by fraud and
then to consider appropriate language to describe the undesired
behavior.
2:39:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a crime would be committed
in the case that an individual fails to disclose his/her
identity or in the case when an individual presents a false
identity.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked for clarification on the distinction
that Representative Eastman was posing and added that the
anecdotes based on which the law had been drafted had involved
individuals posing as someone known to the victim other than
his/herself, and consent was then withdrawn. She referred to a
report by the State of Washington involving instances of rape by
fraud which depicted cases dating back to the 1870s for further
examples.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, should HB 5 pass, whether it would
constitute a crime should an individual promise marriage in
exchange for sex.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated her belief that it would not since
the matter of the individual's identity is not misrepresented.
MS. SCHROEDER offered her opinion that neither of the two
examples offered in the discussion would constitute a crime
regardless of the passage of HB 5. She recalled earlier
testimony regarding sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree
and offered the clarification that the waiver process in that
case would be discretionary.
2:44:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her hope that the topic of
coercion would be addressed in HB 5 as it relates to grooming
and human trafficking. She asked Representative Tarr to explain
how coercion [may be unlawful] in current law and how HB 5
addresses the matter.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Section 6 and the updated
definition of consent. She noted that the new definition
includes consent be freely given.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked the Department of Law its opinion
whether to include the word "coercion" or if it was implied in
the proposed language as written.
MS. SCHROEDER expressed the belief that "coercion" is addressed
adequately in the bill and that there exists overlap with
existing statute regarding coercion. She suggested that an
amendment could be considered to ensure that there would not
exist any contradiction between HB 5 and existing statute.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked that in a case in which a person was
proven to have coerced sex from another with the promise of
marriage, whether that person would be guilty of assault by
coercion.
MS. SCHROEDER cautioned that the scenario described by
Representatives Eastman and Vance [regarding the promise of
marriage] and coercion as it relates to HB 5 were two different
matters. She noted that coercion with the promise of marriage
would pose challenges in proving and that HB 5 would not address
that particular conduct. She offered a broad example of
coercion related to HB 5 as involving someone withholding a
promotion for sex.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that AS 11.41.530 contains the definition of
coercion.
2:48:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for the legal distinction between
coercion with the promise of marriage or coercion with the
promise of a promotion.
MS. SCHROEDER offered to follow up with a complete answer.
[CSSSHB 5(STA) was held over.]
2:50:22 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 5 v. W 5.6.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Sponsor Statement 2.23.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM HSTA 3/27/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Sectional Analysis v. W 5.6.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Explanation of Changes v. G to v. W 5.5.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Supporting Document - Articles, Age and Offender Table for SAM 1 and SAM 2, and Consent Tabular Analysis 2.4.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Supporting Document - Letters Received as of 4.9.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Supporting Document - Testimony Received as of 3.3.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Opposing Document - Letters Received as of 4.26.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note DOA-OPA 2.25.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note DOA-PDA 2.25.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO 2.26.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 2.25.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 2.25.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note DPS-SCDL 2.26.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2022 10:30:00 AM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 3.2.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/30/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 PowerPoint Presentation HJUD 3.4.2022.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| SB 11 v. G 5.11.2021.PDF |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Sponsor Statement v. G 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Sectional Analysis v. G 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Supporting Document - Supreme Court Phillips Decision 12.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Supporting Document - LISI Article 7.29.2019.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Supporting Document - Community Property Trust Act.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |
| SB 11 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 2.2.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 11 |