Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)

02/19/2020 01:30 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:31:11 PM Start
01:31:20 PM Presentation: Legislative Affairs Agency, 2019 Legal Services Oversight Report
02:49:10 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ Presentation: TELECONFERENCED
- Legislative Affairs Agency Legal Counsel
- Oversight of 2019 Report by LAA Legal
                        ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                              
                  SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                         
                           February 19, 2020                                                                                    
                               1:31 p.m.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
 Senator John Coghill, Chair                                                                                                    
 Senator Peter Micciche, Vice Chair                                                                                             
 Senator Shelley Hughes                                                                                                         
 Senator Lora Reinbold                                                                                                          
 Senator Jesse Kiehl                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
 All members present                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
 PRESENTATION: LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY ~ 2019 LEGAL SERVICES                                                                 
 OVERSIGHT REPORT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
      - HEARD                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
 PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
 No previous action to record                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
 MEGHAN WALLACE, Director                                                                                                       
 Legislative Legal Services                                                                                                     
 Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                     
 Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                 
 POSITION STATEMENT: Participated a PowerPoint and answered                                                                   
 questions during the 2019 Legal Services Oversight Report.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
 LINDA BRUCE, Assistant Revisor                                                                                                 
 Legislative Legal Services                                                                                                     
 Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                     
 Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                 
 POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in a PowerPoint and answered                                                                
 questions during the 2019 Legal Services Oversight Report.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
 SANDON FISHER, Legislative Legal Counsel                                                                                       
Legislative Legal Services                                                                                                      
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT: Participated  in a  PowerPoint  and answered                                                             
questions on the 2019 Legal Services Oversight Report.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MEERA CAOUETTE, Legislative Legal Counsel                                                                                       
Legislative Legal Services                                                                                                      
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:  Participated   a  PowerPoint  and  answered                                                             
questions on the 2019 Legal Services Oversight Report.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:31:11 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  JOHN   COGHILL  called   the  Senate   Judiciary  Standing                                                             
Committee meeting to order  at 1:31 p.m. Present at call to order                                                               
were Senators Reinbold,  Kiehl, Hughes and Chair Coghill. Senator                                                               
Micciche joined the meeting as it was in progress.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
^Presentation:  Legislative Affairs  Agency, 2019  Legal Services                                                               
Oversight Report                                                                                                                
  Presentation: Legislative Affairs Agency, 2019 Legal Services                                                             
                        Oversight Report                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:31:20 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  COGHILL  announced   a  presentation  by  the  Legislative                                                               
Affairs Agency on the 2019 Legal Services Oversight Report.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:33:02 PM                                                                                                                    
MEGHAN  WALLACE,  Director,  Legal  Services,  Division of  Legal                                                               
Services, Legislative  Affairs Agency,  said she  cannot take any                                                               
credit  for the  report since  the  agency's attorneys  worked on                                                               
reviewing, summarizing, and  providing the recommendations on the                                                               
report.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:34:01 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. WALLACE  reviewed slide  2, Why  Do We Prepare  the Oversight                                                               
Report?                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
   square4 AS 24.20.065(a) requires that the Legislative Council                                                                
     annually examine  administrative regulations, published                                                                    
     opinions  of  state  and  federal  courts  and  of  the                                                                    
     Department  of Law  that  rely on  state  statutes, and                                                                    
     final  decisions   adopted  under   the  Administrative                                                                    
     Procedure Act (AS 44.62) to determine whether or not                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                (1)  the courts  and  agencies  are  properly                                                                   
      implementing legislative purposes;                                                                                        
                (2) there are court or  agency expressions of                                                                   
      dissatisfaction with state  statutes or the  common law                                                                   
      of the state;                                                                                                             
                (3) the  opinions, decisions, or  regulations                                                                   
      indicate unclear or ambiguous statutes;                                                                                   
                (4) the courts  have modified or  revised the                                                                   
      common law of the state.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Under AS 24.20.065(b) the Council is to make a                                                                       
      comprehensive    report    of    its    findings    and                                                                   
      recommendations to  the members  of the Legislature  at                                                                   
      the start of each regular session.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
 1:34:53 PM                                                                                                                   
 CHAIR COGHILL commented that the legislature asked for this                                                                    
 report.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
 MS. WALLACE agreed. The LAA, Legislative Legal Services no                                                                     
 longer reviews the regulations. In 2018, the legislature                                                                       
 repealed the regulation commission's authority.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
 1:34:56 PM                                                                                                                   
 MS. WALLACE reviewed slide 3, What is in the Oversight                                                                         
 Report?                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Review of the opinions of the Alaska Supreme Court,                                                                  
      the Alaska Court  of Appeals,  the United  States Court                                                                   
      of  Appeals for  the  Ninth  Circuit,  and  the  United                                                                   
      States District Court  for the District of  Alaska that                                                                   
      rely  on  Alaska  Statutes  or   interpret  the  Alaska                                                                   
      Constitution                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Review of formal and informal opinions of the Attorney                                                               
      General that construe  or interpret Alaska  Statutes or                                                                   
      the Alaska  Constitution or  that might  be of  special                                                                   
      interest to the legislature                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
   square4 A list of Alaska Statutes that, absent any action by                                                                 
      the  2020 Legislature,  will  be  repealed  or  amended                                                                   
      before  March   1,  2021,   because  of  repealers   or                                                                   
      amendments  enacted   by  previous  legislatures   with                                                                   
      delayed effective dates                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Recommendations for legislative review                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
She  said this  year  the legislature  was already  aware  of the                                                               
attorney general's  opinions, so  they did not  have to highlight                                                               
them  in the  report. She  provided a  brief  summary of  how the                                                               
agency conducts  these reviews.  The Alaska Supreme  Court issues                                                               
its  decisions   on  Fridays,   she  assigns  the   decisions  to                                                               
attorneys, and the attorneys  review the decisions throughout the                                                               
year.  In the  Interim,  the attorneys  will pull  out  cases and                                                               
prepare  summaries.  It takes  several  months  to  prepare these                                                               
reports.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WALLACE  directed members  to  the  report.  After  the case                                                               
summary, the  attorney makes  a notation that  legislative review                                                               
is not  recommended, which means  the division  included the case                                                               
since it  analyzed or  interpreted a constitutional  provision or                                                               
an  Alaska  statute,   or  alternatively,  a  recommendation  for                                                               
legislative review  or a  qualifier that that  legislative review                                                               
is not recommended unless  there is something the legislature may                                                               
specifically wish to review with respect to the decision.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
She  said the  plan today  is to  go  through the  2019 oversight                                                               
report  and highlight  three cases  the  legislature may  wish to                                                               
review,  and   about  15  other  cases   that  may  interest  the                                                               
legislature. She explained  that the attorneys read the cases but                                                               
are  not the  subject  matter expert  of the  statute  or subject                                                               
under discussion.  She asked members to keep  that in mind before                                                               
diving too deeply into a subject area.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:38:46 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  COGHILL suggested  that members  make individual  notes on                                                               
issues that may need additional briefing.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:39:54 PM                                                                                                                    
LINDA  BRUCE,  Assistant  Revisor,  Legislative  Legal  Services,                                                               
Legislative  Affairs  Agency,  Juneau,  Alaska,  said  she  would                                                               
discuss the first 8 of the 18 cases for today's hearing.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
She  referred to  a  case on  slide 4,  2019  Recommendations for                                                               
Legislative Review:                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
   square4 State v. Planned Parenthood of the Greater Northwest,                                                                
     436 P.3d 984 (Alaska 2019)  AS 47.07.068                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
    square4 AS 47.07.068 AND 7 AAC 160.900(D)(30), WHICH                                                                      
         REDEFINE WHICH ABORTIONS QUALIFY AS "MEDICALLY                                                                       
        NECESSARY" FOR THE PURPOSES OF MEDICAID FUNDING,                                                                      
      VIOLATE THE ALASKA CONSTITUTION'S GUARANTEE OF EQUAL                                                                    
      PROTECTION.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     square4 Pages 4 - 5                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
 She said  in 2014,  the legislature  enacted AS 47.07.068,  which                                                              
 redefined which  abortions qualify  as "medically necessary"  for                                                              
 the purpose of Medicaid funding, similar  to the 2013 regulation.                                                              
 Specifically,  AS 47.07.068(a)  prohibits  Medicaid  payment  for                                                              
 abortions "unless  the  abortion services  are  for a  "medically                                                              
 necessary" abortion or  the pregnancy was  the result of  rape or                                                              
 incest."  Subsection (b)  (3)  defines  a  "medically  necessary"                                                              
 abortion as one that, "in a physician's  objective and reasonable                                                              
 professional  judgment   after  considering  medically   relevant                                                              
 factors ? must be performed to avoid a  threat of serious risk to                                                              
 the life or physical health  of a woman from  continuation of the                                                              
 woman's  pregnancy." Subsection  (b)(4)  then  explains  "serious                                                              
 risk to the life or physical health."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
 MS. WALLACE  said the  Alaska Supreme  Court determined  that the                                                              
 statute and  the regulation  imposed  different requirements  for                                                              
 Medicaid funding  eligibility upon  women who  choose to  have an                                                              
 abortion to terminate  their pregnancy versus women  who continue                                                              
 with their pregnancy. Therefore, the Court  held that the statute                                                              
 violated the  Constitution of  the State  of Alaska guarantee  of                                                              
 equal protection.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
 She said  as  provided  in  the report,  "Legislative  review  is                                                              
 recommended to consider  amending AS  47.07.068 in light  of this                                                              
 decision."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR COGHILL said he recalls the debate.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
 1:41:56 PM                                                                                                                   
 SENATOR REINBOLD  said she  cosponsored  the bill  and she  finds                                                              
 this very  challenging. She  asked  for the  definition of  equal                                                              
 protection.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR COGHILL said  it is a question  the committee will  need to                                                              
 answer in terms of the statute in question.  He said her question                                                              
 relates to  the  issues the  Alaska Supreme  Court  had with  the                                                              
 language  and  not  the  Legislative  Legal  Services  attorney's                                                              
 interpretation.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
 SENATOR REINBOLD  said she  was interested  in the definition  of                                                              
 equal protection.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR COGHILL explained that he does not wish to have                                                                          
 Legislative Legal review the entire court case. He said the goal                                                               
 is to flag the issues for the committee.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:43:35 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the hearing.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HUGHES  said it  is appropriate  to flag this  issue. She                                                               
stated that the constitutional  amendment in SJR 13 would address                                                               
this issue.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:44:43 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. BRUCE turned to the next case on slide 4:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Doe v. State, Dep't of Pub. Safety, 444 P.3d 116                                                                     
     (Alaska 2019) - AS 12.63.010 - 12.63.100; AS 18.65.087                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     THE    ALASKA   SEX    OFFENDER    REGISTRATION   ACT'S                                                                  
     REGISTRATION   REQUIREMENTS  CAN   CONSTITUTIONALLY  BE                                                                  
     APPLIED  TO OUT-OF-STATE  OFFENDERS;  THE  ACT VIOLATES                                                                  
     DUE PROCESS, BUT THIS  DEFECT MAY BE CURED BY PROVIDING                                                                  
     A  PROCEDURE  FOR  OFFENDERS  TO ESTABLISH  THEIR  NON-                                                                  
     DANGEROUSNESS.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                              
   square4 Pages 6 - 7                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The  Alaska  Supreme  Court  considered  whether  the Alaska  sex                                                               
offender act violated due  process by requiring all sex offenders                                                               
to register  without providing a procedure  for them to establish                                                               
their non-dangerousness.  Under the  act, all sex  offenders must                                                               
register every  year for 15  years. However,  repeat offenders or                                                               
offenders  guilty   of  an   aggravated  offense   must  register                                                               
quarterly  for life.  First, the  Alaska Supreme  Court concluded                                                               
that Alaska is not  barred by lack of jurisdiction from requiring                                                               
out-of-state offenders  who are present in  the state to register                                                               
under  the   Alaska  Sex   Offender  Registration   Act  (ASORA).                                                               
Therefore, the  Court found that  Doe must  register under ASORA.                                                               
Next, the  Court concluded that  the Act violated  due process. A                                                               
sex  offender may  hold a  legitimate and  objectively reasonable                                                               
privacy expectation that  his conviction and personal information                                                               
will not be  disseminated as it is under  ASORA. The Court agreed                                                               
with  the state  that there  was a  compelling state  interest in                                                               
protecting  the public  from  sex offenders.  However,  the Court                                                               
determined the  Act did not  provide the  least restrictive means                                                               
for achieving this  goal. The Court concluded  that the defect in                                                               
ASORA  may be  cured by  providing a  procedure for  offenders to                                                               
establish  their non-dangerousness.  The Court  specifically said                                                               
 it was not invalidating  the Act because it serves  very obvious,                                                              
 legitimate purposes.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
 1:46:37 PM                                                                                                                   
 CHAIR COGHILL interjected that the legislature  has a bill in the                                                              
 Senate State Affairs Standing Committee on this subject.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
 1:46:41 PM                                                                                                                   
 SENATOR KIEHL  asked if  the decision  talks about timeframes  or                                                              
 the number of hearings.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
 MS. BRUCE  answered the  decision did  not discuss timeframes  or                                                              
 multiple hearings.  It appears  from the  decision that  just one                                                              
 hearing is needed but it seems to be left to the legislature.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR COGHILL said the  committee will have a chance  to consider                                                              
 the court's actions and the governor's solution.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
 1:47:39 PM                                                                                                                   
 SENATOR REINBOLD  said  it  would be  helpful  to  know the  bill                                                              
 number and  year that  it passed.  She specifically  asked if  it                                                              
 pertained to HB 49 or if it was a different bill.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
 MS. BRUCE answered that it did not relate  to HB 49. She said she                                                              
 thought that the sex offender registry  passed the legislature in                                                              
 1984, but the  legislature has  subsequently amended  it multiple                                                              
 times.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR COGHILL  said it would  be helpful  to review  the specific                                                              
 statute for the footnotes that identify the court decisions.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
 1:48:29 PM                                                                                                                   
 SENATOR REINBOLD asked  why the court  is reviewing  the decision                                                              
 after 20 years.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR COGHILL answered that  someone out of state  complained. He                                                              
 reiterated his intent for  the committee to flag  issues on these                                                              
 cases to deal with later.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
 SENATOR  REINBOLD  said  she  understood.  She   added  that  the                                                              
 legislature dealt with the  sex offender registry last  year as a                                                              
 public safety issue.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR COGHILL  said he  anticipated responding  to this  issue in                                                              
 committee.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
 1:50:06 PM                                                                                                                   
SENATOR KIEHL  said he found  his notes on this  pertaining to an                                                               
applicant  filing a  new complaint  to get  off the  sex offender                                                               
registry. He  said it would  be helpful for  Legislative Legal to                                                               
discuss the notion of rehearing.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:50:24 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  related  his  understanding  that  Legislative                                                               
Legal Services was giving a status report on the cases.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR COGHILL agreed.  He said the goal is  to flag the cases for                                                               
further committee review.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:51:19 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE said  it  is  difficult not  to  get passionate                                                               
about the cases.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR COGHILL acknowledged that  each of these cases brings legal                                                               
and emotional debate.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:51:48 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. BRUCE returned  to Doe v. State.  She said legislative review                                                               
is  recommended  to consider  whether  to  amend  the  Alaska Sex                                                               
Offender  Registry  Act  in  light  of  this decision.  As  Chair                                                               
Coghill pointed  out, the governor  has introduced HB  228 and SB
168 to address sex offender registration.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:52:25 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. BRUCE reviewed slide  5, 2019 Recommendations for Legislative                                                               
Review:                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Hamburg v. State, 434 P.3d 1165 (Alaska App. 2018) -                                                                 
     AS 12.30.011(d)(2)                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
   square4 THE PRE-2018 VERSION OF AS 12.30.011(d)(2), WHICH                                                                  
     ALLOWS  THE COURT  TO PRESUME  THAT  DEFENDANTS CHARGED                                                                  
     WITH CERTAIN  CLASSES OF  FELONIES MAY NOT  BE RELEASED                                                                  
     ON   BAIL,   VIOLATES   THE  CONSTITUTIONAL   PROVISION                                                                  
     ENTITLING DEFENDANTS TO BAIL BEFORE CONVICTION.                                                                          
                                                                                                                              
   square4 Page 9                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
She said  this case has  to do  with HB 49.  The Court considered                                                               
the pre-2018  version of AS 12.30.011(d)(2),  which provided that                                                               
when a defendant is  charged with certain types of offenses there                                                               
is  a rebuttable  presumption  that  no conditions  of  bail will                                                               
guarantee the defendant's  appearance at future court proceedings                                                               
and the safety of the  victim and the public. The Court held that                                                               
 the statute was unconstitutional under Article  I, Section 11, of                                                              
 the Constitution of the State of Alaska.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
 MS. BRUCE  said  legislative review  is  recommended because  the                                                              
 legislature used language similar to the  pre-2018 version of the                                                              
 statute when it repealed  and reenacted AS 12.30.011(d)(2)  in HB
 49. That language is now back in statute, she said.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR   COGHILL   related   his   understanding    that   it   is                                                              
 challengeable.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
 MS. BRUCE answered yes.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR COGHILL said it is something the committee should review.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
 1:53:46 PM                                                                                                                   
 MS. BRUCE  reviewed slide  6, Other  Cases of  Interest That  May                                                              
 Require Review:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
   square4 State v. Thompson, 435 P.3d 947 (Alaska 2019)                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is not recommended unless the                                                                     
      legislature   does   not   want   to   allow   separate                                                                   
      convictions for  each  distinct  act of  non-consensual                                                                   
      sexual penetration when  either the  penetrating object                                                                   
      or body part or the penetrated orifice has changed.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Page 8                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
 She said  in  this case  a defendant  was  convicted of  multiple                                                              
 counts of first  and second degree sexual  abuse of a  minor. The                                                              
 disagreement was  whether separate  convictions could  be imposed                                                              
 for sexual  penetration  with  different  objects or  body  parts                                                              
 regardless of  the  time period  of  the  assault. The  defendant                                                              
 argued that these separate convictions should  be merged into one                                                              
 conviction. The Alaska  Supreme Court  first determined  that the                                                              
 same rules for merger apply  to both sexual abuse of  a minor and                                                              
 sexual assault convictions.  The Court next considered  the state                                                              
 and federal  constitutional protections  against double  jeopardy                                                              
 and the legislative  intent of  the sexual abuse  of a  minor and                                                              
 sexual assault  statutes and  concluded  that a  separate act  of                                                              
 penetration  occurs  each time  the  penetrated  orifice  or  the                                                              
 penetrating object  or  body  part  changes. Therefore,  each  of                                                              
 these can support separate convictions.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
 MS. BRUCE said legislative  review is not recommended  unless the                                                              
 legislature does not want to allow  separate convictions for each                                                              
distinct  act of  non-consensual sexual  penetration  when either                                                               
the penetrating  object or  body part  or the  penetrated orifice                                                               
has  changed.   She  stated   that  legislative   review  is  not                                                               
recommended because  generally it seems as  if the Court followed                                                               
legislative  intent  and  the  plain  language  of  the  statute.                                                               
Nevertheless,  Legal Services  flagged  it for  the legislature's                                                               
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:55:48 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  related   his  understanding  that  the  Court                                                               
ultimately found that not merging the charges was appropriate.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. BRUCE answered that is correct.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR COGHILL recalled that was the legislature's intent.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:56:16 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. BRUCE continued with the next case on slide 6:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Nelson v. State, 440 P.3d 240 (Alaska 2019).                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is not   recommended   unless   the                                                               
     legislature wants a public defender's conflict to only be                                                                  
     imputed to others in the same office on a case-by-case                                                                     
     basis.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Page 17                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
She said  this case  relates to rules  of professional  conduct. A                                                              
defendant  alleged  ineffective  assistance of  counsel  from  his                                                              
public  defender.  At  the  defendant's  sentencing  hearing,  the                                                              
defendant was  represented by a  different attorney from  the same                                                              
Public  Defender  Agency  office.  The defendant  argued  that  he                                                              
should not have  a public defender from  the same office  due to a                                                              
conflict of  interest. The superior  court agreed on  the conflict                                                              
of  interest but  appointed  new counsel  only  for any  potential                                                              
appellate and  post-conviction relief proceedings. On  appeal, the                                                              
Alaska Supreme  Court adopted a per  se rule, under which  a "mere                                                              
allegation  of ineffective  assistance is sufficient  to create  a                                                              
conflict  of  interest  disqualifying the  public  defender."  The                                                              
Court held that a public defender  has a conflict of interest that                                                              
disqualifies that  public defender  from representing  a defendant                                                              
when the  defendant raises  a claim  of ineffective  assistance of                                                              
counsel against  another public defender  in the same  office. The                                                              
Court  further  held that  a  defendant  is entitled  to  conflict                                                              
counsel  immediately after  raising an  ineffective assistance  of                                                              
counsel claim in the context of an attempt to withdraw a plea.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
 MS. BRUCE said  legislative review is  not recommended unless  the                                                             
 legislature wants a public defender's conflict to only be  imputed                                                             
 to others in the same office on a case-by-case basis.  Some states                                                             
 do operate in this manner.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
 1:58:08 PM                                                                                                                   
 SENATOR REINBOLD asked how these cases correlate.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
 MS. WALLACE explained  that since there  are multiple drafters  of                                                             
 this report, she  organized the synopses based  on the cases  each                                                             
 attorney reviewed.  She pointed out  that she  designated on  each                                                             
 slide the  page  number on  the  report.  For example,  Nelson  v.                                                             
 State, just discussed, is found on page 17 of the report.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
 1:59:20 PM                                                                                                                   
 MS. BRUCE referred to the next case on slide 6:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Weston v. AKHappytime, LLC, 445 P.3d 1015 (Alaska                                                                    
      2019) - AS 09.17.070                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is not recommended unless the                                                                     
        legislature wants to limit evidence introduced at                                                                       
        trial to the amount actually paid to the medical                                                                        
      provider.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Page 18                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
 She said  in this  case a  woman was seriously  injured  when she                                                              
 slipped and fell on  ice in a  hotel parking lot. When  the woman                                                              
 later sued the hotel for negligence, the hotel  sought to bar her                                                              
 from introducing her  original medical  bills as evidence  of her                                                              
 damages, arguing that only the amount  Medicare actually paid was                                                              
 relevant and  admissible.  On appeal,  the  Alaska Supreme  Court                                                              
 allowed the  injured party  to introduce  the full,  undiscounted                                                              
 medical bills  at  trial  as  evidence  of the  medial  services'                                                              
 reasonable value. However, the Court also  found that evidence of                                                              
 the amounts  actually  paid  to  providers for  medical  services                                                              
 should be excluded from the jury's consideration  at trial but is                                                              
 subject  to  post-trial   proceedings  under  AS   09.17.070  for                                                              
 possible reduction of the damages award.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
 MS. BRUCE said legislative  review is not recommended  unless the                                                              
 legislature wants to  limit evidence  introduced at trial  to the                                                              
 amount actually paid to the medical provider.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
 2:00:57 PM                                                                                                                   
MS. BRUCE reviewed the final case on slide 6:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Keeton III v. State, Dep't of Transp. and Pub.                                                                       
           Facilities, 441 P.3d 933 (Alaska 2019) - AS                                                                          
     09.55.440(a)                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is not recommended unless the                                                                     
     legislature wants to include attorney's fees and costs                                                                     
     in "the amount finally awarded" for purposes of awards                                                                     
     of prejudgment interest under AS 09.55.440(a).                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Pages 18 - 19                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
She  explained that  when  the Department  of  Transportation and                                                               
Public  Facilities   (DOTPF)  files  a   declaration  of  taking,                                                               
allowing it  to take title  to the property  immediately, it must                                                               
deposit  with  the  court  the  estimated  compensation  for  the                                                               
taking. The landowner  can appeal arguing that  the amount of the                                                               
taking is greater.  If the landowner succeeds  in that effort, AS                                                               
09.55.440(a)  allows any  difference between  the  amount awarded                                                               
and the  amount that DOT&PF  placed with the court  to be charged                                                               
interest at the rate of 10.5 percent annually.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BRUCE said  the  landowner  argued that  the  amount finally                                                               
awarded should  include legal fees and  costs. The Alaska Supreme                                                               
Court  disagreed  and  held  that  "for  purposes  of  awards  of                                                               
prejudgment interest  under AS 09.55.440(a),  'the amount finally                                                               
awarded'  does  not  include   attorney's  fees  and  costs."  It                                                               
pertains only to the fair value of the land.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
She explained  that the landowner still  receives attorney's fees                                                               
and costs, but the interest rate is 4.5 percent.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. BRUCE said  legislative review is  not recommended unless the                                                               
legislature  wants to include  attorney's fees  and costs  in the                                                               
amount  finally awarded  for  purposes of  awards  of prejudgment                                                               
interest under AS 09.55.440(a).                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:02:57 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  BRUCE reviewed  slide 7,  Other Cases  of Interest  That May                                                               
Require Review:                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
   square4 R.C. v. State, 435 P.3d 1022 (Alaska App. 2018) - AS                                                                 
     47.12.120(b)(4)(A)                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is not recommended unless the                                                                     
         legislature does not want a court to consider a                                                                        
         minor's ability to pay restitution in juvenile                                                                         
      delinquency cases.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
   square4  Pages 24 - 25                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
 Under this case the Court considered  two different statutes. One                                                              
 is  AS   12.55.045(g),   which   prohibits  trial   courts   from                                                              
 considering  a   criminal  defendant's   ability   to  pay   when                                                              
 determining the  amount of  restitution  in a  criminal case.  In                                                              
 this case  a  juvenile  argued  that  the trial  court  erred  in                                                              
 failing  to consider  the  juvenile's  ability  to  pay  when  it                                                              
 ordered the restitution  amount. On  appeal, the Alaska  Court of                                                              
 Appeals stated  that  there  is  no  provision equivalent  to  AS                                                              
 12.55.045(g) in  AS  47.12,  which governs  juvenile  delinquency                                                              
 proceedings. However,  the court  noted  that AS  47.12.120(b)(4)                                                              
 provides that  a  court  shall  order  a minor  and  the  minor's                                                              
 parents to make  suitable restitution following  the adjudication                                                              
 of  a minor  as  delinquent.  The  court  noted  the  legislative                                                              
 history. It has  come before the  legislature multiple  times and                                                              
 the legislature has  chosen not to  amend the  juvenile statutory                                                              
 language similar to  the criminal  provision. It  ultimately held                                                              
 that  trial  courts   are  not  prohibited  from   considering  a                                                              
 juvenile's ability  to pay  when setting  restitution amounts  in                                                              
 juvenile delinquency cases.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
 MS. BRUCE said legislative  review is not recommended  unless the                                                              
 legislature does not want  a court to consider  a minor's ability                                                              
 to  pay restitution  in  juvenile  delinquency  cases.  She  said                                                              
 essentially it says  that the legislature  could choose  to adopt                                                              
 similar language to the criminal provision for juveniles.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
 2:04:40 PM                                                                                                                   
 CHAIR COGHILL remarked that this review provides  a chance to see                                                              
 what the courts have done and to even  consider how to handle the                                                              
 effective dates.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
 2:05:16 PM                                                                                                                   
 SANDON FISHER, Legislative  Counsel, Legal  Services, Legislative                                                              
 Affairs Agency (LAA),  Juneau, Alaska,  reviewed the  second case                                                              
 on slide 7:                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Thompson v. Hebdon, 909 F.3d 1027 (Ninth Cir. 2018) -                                                                
      AS 15.13.072                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is recommended if the legislature                                                                 
       wishes to amend the amount or manner of permissible                                                                      
      nonresident political contributions.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Pages 13 - 14                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
He  explained   that  this  case   challenged  Alaska's  campaign                                                               
contribution statutory  limits on  the grounds that  they violate                                                               
the First  Amendment of the U.S.  Constitution. Specifically: (1)                                                               
the $500 annual contribution  limit on an individual contribution                                                               
to a  political candidate;  (2) the  $500 limit on  an individual                                                               
contribution  to  a non-political  party  group;  (3)  the annual                                                               
limits on what  a political party can  contribute to a candidate;                                                               
and (4) the  annual aggregate limit  on contributions a candidate                                                               
may accept from  nonresidents of Alaska.  The Ninth Circuit Court                                                               
of  Appeals upheld  the first  three contribution  limits because                                                               
they furthered  an important state  interest and  the limits were                                                               
closely drawn.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FISHER said  the  Ninth Circuit  struck  down  the aggregate                                                               
limit  on  nonresident  contributions.  Generally,  a  state  can                                                               
impose  contribution  limits in  order  to  further  an important                                                               
state interest.  The Alaska Supreme  Court case law  has said the                                                               
important state  interest is  preventing quid pro  quo corruption                                                               
or   its  appearance.   The   Alaska  Supreme   Court   said  the                                                               
contribution limit would be  upheld if the limit is closely drawn                                                               
to furthering  that important  state interest. In  this case, the                                                               
Ninth Circuit  pointed out that  the state failed to  show why an                                                               
out-of-state individual's  early contribution  was not corrupting                                                               
but  a   later  contribution  above  the   limit  somehow  became                                                               
corrupting.  For that  reason, the  Ninth  Circuit held  that the                                                               
nonresident  aggregate  contribution  limit  violated  the  First                                                               
Amendment  of  the  U.S.  Constitution  and  did not  further  an                                                               
important state interest.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR COGHILL said he recommended review of this case.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. FISHER said because  the Ninth Circuit found that this fourth                                                               
campaign contribution limit  is unconstitutional, the Legislative                                                               
Legal Services  recommends legislative review  if the legislature                                                               
wishes to amend  the amount or manner  of permissible nonresident                                                               
political contributions.  Basically,  the Ninth Circuit  said the                                                               
statute is unconstitutional and unenforceable.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR COGHILL  said this is  a good case  to flag but  he has not                                                               
seen a statutory provision brought forth yet.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FISHER   pointed  out  that  the   contribution  limits  are                                                               
primarily found in AS 15.13.070 and 15.13.072.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
 2:07:43 PM                                                                                                                   
 SENATOR KIEHL said he thinks there is a bill in the other body.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
 2:07:51 PM                                                                                                                   
 MR. FISHER turned to the next case on slide 7:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
   square4 State v. Tofelogo, 444 P.3d 151 (Alaska 2019) -                                                                      
      AS 12.55.255(c)(18)(A)                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is recommended if the legislature                                                                 
     does not intend for the sentencing aggravator to apply                                                                     
      to roommates.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Pages 26 - 27                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
 He summarized that a man  killed his roommate with  a large knife                                                              
 while  demonstrating  martial  arts  moves.  He  pled  guilty  to                                                              
 criminally   negligent   homicide    and   stipulated    to   the                                                              
 applicability  of  the   statutory  aggravator  set  out   in  AS                                                              
 12.55.155(c)(18)(A) that allows sentencing above  the upper range                                                              
 when a crime is "committed against a spouse,  a former spouse, or                                                              
 a member of the social  unit made up of those  living together in                                                              
 the same dwelling as the defendant."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
 MR.  FISHER  said  on  appeal  the   defendant  argued  that  the                                                              
 aggravators should not apply to his  case because the legislature                                                              
 intended to apply to  domestic violence situations. The  Court of                                                              
 Appeals  agreed with  the  defendant.  However,  on  appeal,  the                                                              
 Alaska Supreme Court  reversed the  Court of Appeals,  concluding                                                              
 that the  plain language  of  the statute  applied to  roommates.                                                              
 Legislative review is  recommended if the Alaska  Supreme Court's                                                              
 interpretation of  the  aggravator  is  not consistent  with  the                                                              
 legislature's intent.  Basically,  the  question is  whether  the                                                              
 legislature intend for  the sentencing  aggravator to  only apply                                                              
 to domestic violence situations, he said.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
 2:09:12 PM                                                                                                                   
 MR. FISHER turned to the last case on slide 7.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Michael W. v. Brown, 433 P.3d 1105 (Alaska 2018) - AS                                                                
      13.26.132                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review of AS 13.26.132 is recommended if                                                                 
        the legislature wants to change the standard for                                                                        
      appointment of a non-parent as a guardian for a minor                                                                     
      child.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Pages 28 - 29                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
He  said  this  case  involves  a  child,  Kevin,  whose  parents                                                               
separated in the  Lower 48. The father,  Michael W., moved to New                                                               
York, and the  mother, Mindy B., moved  to Alaska. In 2016, Mindy                                                               
moved to  Arizona to  enter a  rehabilitation program.  From that                                                               
point  forward,   Kevin  stayed  in  Alaska   with  his  maternal                                                               
grandparents, the  Browns. In  2017, the Browns  filed a petition                                                               
to  be appointed  as the  child's legal  guardian and  Michael W.                                                               
opposed the  petition. Under AS 13.26.132,  the court may appoint                                                               
a  guardian for  a minor  if all  the  parental rights  have been                                                               
"terminated  or  suspended by  circumstances"  or  a  prior court                                                               
order. The Alaska  Supreme Court held that  when a parent opposes                                                               
a  non-parent's petition  for guardianship  of  a minor,  a court                                                               
should first  apply the biological parent  preferences. This is a                                                               
presumption that the parent  should have custody of the child. He                                                               
reiterated that  preference can only be  overcome if the parental                                                               
rights have  been "terminated  or suspended by  circumstances" or                                                               
by a prior court order.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
In  this guardianship  situation, the  Alaska Supreme  Court said                                                               
that   "suspended   by   circumstances"   means   "some  set   of                                                               
circumstances which  deprives a  parent of the  ability to accept                                                               
the  rights and  responsibilities  of parenthood."  If  the court                                                               
cannot  overcome  this first  hurdle,  it  does  not  proceed any                                                               
further  and  the  parent   is  entitled  to  his/her  biological                                                               
preference.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
If there  is a  set of circumstances  which deprives  a parent of                                                               
the  ability  to  accept   the  rights  and  responsibilities  of                                                               
parenthood,  then the court  considers the  best interest  of the                                                               
child in determining  who to appoint as  the guardians. Here, the                                                               
best interest of the child  is not the first order of the Court's                                                               
inquiry  in a  guardianship  dispute  between a  nonparent  and a                                                               
parent. Legislative review  of AS 13.26.132 is recommended if the                                                               
legislature  wants   to  clarify  or  change   the  standard  for                                                               
appointment of a non-parent as a guardian for a minor child.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:11:27 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. FISHER  reviewed slide  8, Other  Cases of Interest  That May                                                               
Require Review:                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Schacht v. Kunimune, 440 P.3d 149 (Alaska 2019) - AS                                                                 
     13.33.211                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is not recommended unless the                                                                     
      legislature does not intend for AS 13.33.211 to apply                                                                     
     to all controversies between beneficial account owners                                                                     
      and creditors.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Pages 29 - 30                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
 He said this  case involves the  relationship between  a creditor                                                              
 and the owners of a joint checking account.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
 A  son opened  joint  checking  and  savings  accounts  with  his                                                              
 father. A creditor of  the father later levied  the joint account                                                              
 and  obtained  approximately  $90,000  (essentially   all  of  it                                                              
 traceable to the son)  in partial satisfaction of  the creditor's                                                              
 judgment  against  the   father.  The   son  intervened   in  the                                                              
 collection action, arguing that  the money should be  returned to                                                              
 him because  he  was the  equitable  owner of  the  funds in  the                                                              
 accounts.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
 MR. FISHER said at issue  in this case is  AS 13.33.211(a), which                                                              
 provides that  "during the  lifetime of  all parties, an  account                                                              
 belongs to the parties  in proportion to the net  contribution of                                                              
 each  to  the  sums  on  deposit,  unless   there  is  clear  and                                                              
 convincing evidence of a different intent."  After reviewing this                                                              
 statute, the Alaska  Supreme Court held that  "courts considering                                                              
 a challenge by a joint  account owner to a  creditor's levying of                                                              
 funds from a joint account presumptively  must apply AS 13.33.211                                                              
 and calculate  the net  contributions  of each  account owner  to                                                              
 determine the amount  of funds subject  to levy. A  creditor can,                                                              
 in turn, rebut the presumption that joint  owners own the account                                                              
 in accordance  with their  net contributions  by providing  clear                                                              
 and convincing evident of a different intent."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
 He  said  legislative  review  is  not   recommended  unless  the                                                              
 legislature does  not intend  for AS  13.33.211 to  apply to  all                                                              
 controversies between  beneficial account  owners and  creditors.                                                              
 He pointed out  that it  is important to  note that  this statute                                                              
 applies only  to  disputes between  creditors  and joint  account                                                              
 owners. It wouldn't  necessarily apply  to a dispute  between the                                                              
 owners of a joint account over the ownership of the funds.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR COGHILL  said it  appeared to  have worked  the way  it was                                                              
 supposed to work.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
 2:13:18 PM                                                                                                                   
 MR. FISHER turned to the next case on slide 8.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Morrison v. Alaska Interstate Constr. Inc., 440 P.3d                                                                 
      224 (Alaska 2019) - AS 23.30.010(a)                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is not recommended unless the                                                                     
         legislature wishes to modify the last injurious                                                                        
     exposure rule.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Pages 31 - 32                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
He said  in this case a  worker had surgery on  his right knee in                                                               
2004  after  injuring it  while  working  for  an employer,  [SKW                                                               
Eskimos,  Inc.].  The  employer  paid all  workers'  compensation                                                               
claims related  to the 2004  knee injury. The  worker returned to                                                               
work for a different  employer. In 2014, the worker again injured                                                               
the  knee.  The new  employer  disputed  liability  for continued                                                               
medical  care,  and the  worker  filed  a  written  claim against                                                               
Interstate [the  new employer]. The  question at issue  is if the                                                               
old  or new  employer  should  be held  liable  for  the workers'                                                               
compensation claim.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. FISHER  said this case  involves the  last injurious exposure                                                               
rule,  which  applies  when  successive  injuries with  different                                                               
employers each  contribute to a worker's  needs for medical care.                                                               
Prior to  2005, the rule  imposed full liability  on the employer                                                               
at  the  time  of the  most  recent  injury  that  bore a  causal                                                               
relationship   to   the  disability.   However,   in   2005,  the                                                               
legislature  amended AS  23.30.010. The  change now  requires the                                                               
Workers' Compensation  Board to  look at the  different causes of                                                               
need for  medical treatment and  determine which  of those causes                                                               
is  the  most  substantial.  The  Court  held that  this  statute                                                               
changed the  last injurious exposure rule.  Instead of looking to                                                               
the person  who was the employer  at the time  of the last injury                                                               
related to the disability,  now the board determines which injury                                                               
was the substantial cause  of this disability. The board can then                                                               
impose liability on the  current employer or an earlier employer,                                                               
rather than just going back to the most recent injury.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  COGHILL related  his  understanding that  the  board would                                                               
decide the proportional cause.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. FISHER  answered not  necessarily. The  Court noted  that the                                                               
board must  pick between  one or the  other. The  employer who is                                                               
most responsible  pays in  full. It  specifically noted  that the                                                               
statute does not apply for apportionment.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Legislative  review  is not  recommended  unless  the legislature                                                               
wishes to modify the last injurious exposure rule.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:15:46 PM                                                                                                                    
 MR. FISHER reviewed the next case on slide 8:                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
 In re Paige M., 433 P.3d 1182 (Alaska 2018) - AS 47.30.700                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is not recommended unless the                                                                     
          legislature wants to clarify when a screening                                                                         
      investigation should be conducted.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Pages 41 - 42                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
 A  psychologist  petitioned  to  have   a  patient  involuntarily                                                              
 hospitalized. The superior court  held a hearing on  the petition                                                              
 at which only the  psychologist testified, and the  court granted                                                              
 the petition. The court  relied on testimony by  the psychologist                                                              
 about the patient's condition  before the filing of  the petition                                                              
 and did not  conduct a screening  investigation. The  patient was                                                              
 hospitalized under  AS 47.30.700,  which  allows for  involuntary                                                              
 hospitalization upon the  petition of  any adult. He  pointed out                                                              
 that AS 47.30.705 would allow a peace  officer or licensed doctor                                                              
 or psychologist to swear  an affidavit and have  someone taken in                                                              
 immediately. AS  47.37.700  allows  for hospitalization  after  a                                                              
 judge issues  an order to  that affect.  Under AS  47.30.700, the                                                              
 judge must immediately  conduct a screening investigation  of the                                                              
 person alleged  to  be  mentally ill  or  direct  a local  health                                                              
 professional to do so.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
 The  Alaska Supreme  Court  clarified  that  before  issuing  the                                                              
 hospitalization order, the  screening must  include post-petition                                                              
 interviews  with the  person(s)  making  the  allegations,  other                                                              
 significant  witnesses, and  if  possible,  the  respondent,  the                                                              
 person  alleged to  have  mental  illness  requiring  involuntary                                                              
 hospitalization.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
 Legislative review  is  not  recommended unless  the  legislature                                                              
 wants  to  clarify  when  a  screening  investigation  should  be                                                              
 conducted.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
 2:17:23 PM                                                                                                                   
 CHAIR COGHILL  said  it sounds  like the  Court  found an  artful                                                              
 solution.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
 2:17:49 PM                                                                                                                   
 MEERA CAOUETTE, Legislative Counsel,  Legal Services, Legislative                                                              
 Affairs Agency, Juneau, Alaska,  reviewed the final case  on page                                                              
 8.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
       Anderson v. State, 436 P.3d 1071 (Alaska App. 2018)                                                                      
     AS 18.66.990                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is recommended if the legislature                                                                 
     wishes  to clarify application  of the  term "household                                                                    
     member" with respect to  a minor victim of sexual abuse                                                                    
     or  wishes  to  amend  the  exceptions to  the  marital                                                                    
     privilege rules.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Pages 15 - 16                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
She said  the Court of Appeals  had to interpret  an exception to                                                               
the   marital   privileges   in   Rule   505(a)(2)(D)  and   Rule                                                               
505(b)(2)(A), the spousal  immunity privilege. That rule provides                                                               
that  a married  person has  a privilege  not to  be called  as a                                                               
witness  when their  spouse  is  charged with  a  crime. However,                                                               
there are several  exceptions to this  privilege where the spouse                                                               
can be compelled to testify.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CAOUETTE  said the issue  in this case was  the exception for                                                               
cases  where the  spouse  is  charged with  a  crime  of domestic                                                               
violence  as defined in  AS 18.66.990.  Under AS  18.66.990(3), a                                                               
crime of  domestic violence includes  any crime  against a person                                                               
under AS  11.41--which includes  sexual abuse of  a minor--if one                                                               
household  member  commits the  crime  against  another household                                                               
member. Under  AS 18.66.990(5), "household  member" includes both                                                               
"adults or minors  who are dating or who  have dated" and "adults                                                               
or  minors who  are engage  in or  who have  engaged in  a sexual                                                               
relationship."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
She reviewed the facts of  this case. A high school music teacher                                                               
was  charged with  multiple  counts of  sexual abuse  of  a minor                                                               
based on  allegations of  repeated sexual  encounters with  a 15-                                                               
year-old  student.  The   teacher's  wife  asserted  her  spousal                                                               
immunity privilege to not  testify against her husband. The Court                                                               
of Appeals  concluded that the  student was  a "household member"                                                               
under AS 18.66.990(5)  because the teacher  and student dated and                                                               
were  engaged  in a  sexual  relationship.  The  court  made this                                                               
finding  based on  the student's  grand jury  testimony. Although                                                               
the student  was not legally  able to consent  to sexual activity                                                               
with an  adult, she  believed they  were dating and  viewed their                                                               
sexual  relationship  as   consensual  according  to  grand  jury                                                               
testimony. The Court of  Appeals ruled that the crime of domestic                                                               
exception  to the  spousal immunity  applied and  the defendant's                                                               
wife could be compelled to testify.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
 She said  legislative review  is recommended  if the  legislature                                                              
 wishes to  clarify  application of  the  term "household  member"                                                              
 with respect to  a minor  victim of sexual  abuse if  the court's                                                              
 interpretation is inconsistent  with the legislature's  intent or                                                              
 to consider adding a specific exception  to the marital privilege                                                              
 rules for a  crime against  any child  regardless of  the child's                                                              
 relation  to   either  spouse.   The  court   noted  that   other                                                              
 jurisdictions have adopted this type of  exception to the marital                                                              
privileges rules, but no such exception exists under Alaska law.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
 2:20:40 PM                                                                                                                   
 CHAIR  COGHILL  said   the  Court   of  Appeals  is   giving  the                                                              
 legislature a hint on how to remedy the issue.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
 MS. CAOUETTE  responded that  the Court  noted it  was trying  to                                                              
 honor the legislature's intent  to broaden who may  be considered                                                              
 as a victim  of domestic  violence, but it  noted that  this case                                                              
 might  be easier  to  resolve  in  another  jurisdiction  with  a                                                              
 specific exception for a crime against any child.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR COGHILL said  the legislature  will be dealing  with sexual                                                              
 assault issues  so perhaps  a bill  related to  Title 18  will be                                                              
 coming through. He suggested the committee keep this in mind.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
 2:21:15 PM                                                                                                                   
 SENATOR REINBOLD  requested that,  during a  future hearing,  the                                                              
 committee also discuss marital  privilege. She said she  finds it                                                              
 astonishing that a teacher's wife would not want to testify.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR COGHILL responded  that many  court cases  have astonishing                                                              
 facts. Some of it is how  people act and some is how  the rule of                                                              
 law intersects  with  that  action.  That's why  the  legislature                                                              
 continually  reviews  and  rethinks  some  of  these  things.  He                                                              
 concurred that it was difficult to imagine  that kind of reaction                                                              
 and flagged the case for committee review.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
 2:22:16 PM                                                                                                                   
 MS. CAOUETTE reviewed the  first case on slide 9,  Other Cases of                                                              
 Interest That May Require Review:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Alaska Spine Ctr., LLC v. Mat-Su Valley Med. Ctr. LLC,                                                               
      440 P.3d 176 (Alaska 2019) - AS 18.07.031                                                                                 
   square4 Legislative review is not recommended unless the                                                                     
       legislature wishes to clarify the meaning of "same                                                                       
      community" within the context of the AS 18.07.031(c)                                                                      
      exemption to AS 18.07.031(a).                                                                                             
   square4 Pages 30 - 31                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
She said  in this case  the Alaska Supreme  Court interpreted the                                                               
meaning of "same  community" within the  context of AS 18.07.031.                                                               
That  statute   requires  a  healthcare  facility   to  obtain  a                                                               
certificate  of need  (CON)  from  the Department  of  Health and                                                               
Social Services  (DHSS) before  beginning construction  that will                                                               
exceed  a cost  of $1,000,000.  Under  AS 18.07.031(c),  DHSS may                                                               
grant  an  exemption from  the  CON  requirement  to  an existing                                                               
ambulatory  surgery facility  that plans  to relocate  within the                                                               
same  community as  long as  the facility  does not  increase the                                                               
services it  offers. The statute  does not define  the term "same                                                               
community," which  is why  the Court  was asked to  interpret it.                                                               
DHSS granted an exemption  to Alaska Spine Center (Alaska Spine),                                                               
an Anchorage  facility that sought to  relocate to Wasilla, after                                                               
determining  that  Wasilla  and  Anchorage  are  within the  same                                                               
service area and therefore considered the same community.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
The  Alaska  Supreme  Court  concluded   that  neither  the  plain                                                              
language  of  the  statute nor  the  legislature  history  support                                                              
DHSS's determination  that Anchorage and  Wasilla are in  the same                                                              
community. In  reaching this determination,  the Court  noted that                                                              
Anchorage   and  Wasilla   are  each   part   of  distinct   local                                                              
governments,  are located  44  miles apart,  have separate  school                                                              
districts, police forces, and  elected officials, have independent                                                              
hospitals, and  have no  tax overlap.  The Court  further reasoned                                                              
that the term  "service area," defined in DHSS  regulations as the                                                              
"the  geographic  area to  be  served  by the  proposed  activity,                                                              
including  the  community  where the  proposed  activity  will  be                                                              
located," is clearly broader than  the term "community." The Court                                                              
therefore  determined  that  the  terms could  not  be  considered                                                              
synonymous.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
She said  in this case legislative  may wish to  review this case                                                               
to consider defining the term "same community."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR COGHILL  offered his view  that the Court  got pretty close                                                               
to where the legislature would have gotten.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. CAOUETTE  said one thing to  note is that  the Court did make                                                               
the decision but did  not actually define the term. She suggested                                                               
that there could be future litigation.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:24:38 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. CAOUETTE reviewed the next case on slide 9:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
       Warnke-Green v. Pro-West Contractors, LLC, 440 P.3d                                                                      
     283 (Alaska 2019) - AS 23.30.128                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is not recommended, unless the                                                                    
         legislature wishes to limit the reconsideration                                                                        
      authority of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals                                                                     
      Commission to its final decisions on the merits.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Pages 32 - 33                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
 She  said in  this  case  the  Alaska  Supreme  Court  considered                                                              
 whether under  AS  23.30.128,  the Alaska  Workers'  Compensation                                                              
 Appeals Commission can only reconsider its  final decisions. That                                                              
 statute  describes  the   appeal  proceedings  of   the  Workers'                                                              
 Compensation Appeals Commission.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
 MS. CAOUETTE explained that in this  case, a party [Warnke-Green]                                                              
 asked the Commission  to reconsider its attorney's  fees decision                                                              
 and the Commission denied  the request, stating that  it was only                                                              
 authorized to reconsider its final decision on  the merits of the                                                              
 appeal.  The   Alaska   Supreme  Court   noted   that  while   AS                                                              
 23.30.128(f) addresses  reconsideration of Commission  decisions,                                                              
 the statute  "is silent  about reconsideration  of any  decisions                                                              
 other than the final decisions on appeal  described in subsection                                                              
 (e)." The Court considered AS 23.30.128(d),  which authorizes the                                                              
 Commission to  "affirm, reverse,  or modify  a decision  or order                                                              
 upon review  and issue  other orders  as appropriate." The  Court                                                              
 reasoned  that  the   authority  in  subsection  (d)   gives  the                                                              
 Commission broad authority to reconsider  its non-final decisions                                                              
 and that  doing  so is  a "necessary  part  of adjudication"  and                                                              
 advances  the legislative  intent  to  give  individuals  seeking                                                              
 review of board  decisions the same  procedural rights  that they                                                              
 would otherwise receive  in superior  court. The  Court therefore                                                              
 held that  the Commission  has authority  to reconsider  its non-                                                              
 final decisions because such authority  is "necessarily incident"                                                              
 to its authority  to issue other  orders as appropriate  under AS                                                              
 23.30.128(d).                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR  COGHILL  related   that  there   is  a  bill   before  the                                                              
 legislature on  whether  to  keep  the  Commission or  allow  the                                                              
 superior court to handle workers' compensation appeals.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
 SENATOR REINBOLD said she is skeptical of  that bill and when she                                                              
 sees this type  of case,  she wonders  why the  legislature would                                                              
 consider abolishing the Commission.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
 2:26:48 PM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR  COGHILL  reiterated  that  the  Commission  can  currently                                                               
adjudicate cases, but there  is a question on whether to continue                                                               
with that process.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:26:56 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  CAOUETTE said  in  this  case the  legislature  may  wish to                                                               
review this case if it  did not intend for the Commission to have                                                               
the authority to reconsider its non-final decisions.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:27:08 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. CAOUETTE reviewed the next case displayed on slide 9:                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
      Black v. Whitestone Estates Condo. Homeowners' Ass'n,                                                                     
     446 P.3d 786 (Alaska 2019) - AS 34.08.470(h)                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is not recommended unless the                                                                     
     legislature  wishes to  relieve unit  owners  that have                                                                    
     actual knowledge of  an assessment of the obligation to                                                                    
     pay that  assessment if it is  omitted from a statement                                                                    
     provided under AS 34.08.470(h).                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Pages 36 - 37                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CAOUETTE  said  in   this  case  the  Alaska  Supreme  Court                                                               
considered  AS 34.08.470(h),  which provides  that  a condominium                                                               
association "shall  furnish to  a unit owner  a statement setting                                                               
out  the amount  of  unpaid assessments  against  the  unit" upon                                                               
request and  the statement  "is binding  on the  association, the                                                               
executive  board,  and each  unit  owner."  The  Court considered                                                               
whether the statute relieves  the unit owner of the obligation to                                                               
pay an  assessment that  is omitted  from the statement  when the                                                               
owner  has actual  knowledge of  the assessment.  In this  case a                                                               
condominium  owner   couple  requested  a   statement  of  unpaid                                                               
assessments and then  argued that they were  not obligated to pay                                                               
a special assessment  because it was  omitted from the statement.                                                               
On appeal,  the Alaska Supreme  Court noted  that the legislative                                                               
history  of AS  34.08.470(h)  showed  an intent  to  protect unit                                                               
owners by  ensuring they  could readily obtain  information about                                                               
their liability  and preventing  the association  from collecting                                                               
assessments  of which  the owners  have  no knowledge.  The Court                                                               
reasoned  that   when  an  owner  has   actual  knowledge  of  an                                                               
assessment,  the  protection   provided  by  AS  34.08.470(h)  is                                                               
unnecessary. The Court concluded  that "[i]t would be contrary to                                                               
the purpose  of AS  34.08.470 to allow  a unit  owner who already                                                               
knows about  an assessment to  use its omission  from a statement                                                               
provided  by the  association as  a means  to relieve  himself or                                                               
herself of  the obligation to  pay it." She  said the legislature                                                               
 may want to  review this case  if it  intends for the  statute to                                                              
 relieve a unit owner of the obligation to  pay that assessment if                                                              
 it is  omitted from  a  statement even  if the  owner has  actual                                                              
 knowledge of the statement.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
 2:28:47 PM                                                                                                                   
 CHAIR COGHILL said this reminds members of  the importance of the                                                              
 details when they review lengthy bills.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
 2:29:02 PM                                                                                                                   
 SENATOR  REINBOLD  relayed  that  a  condo   association  in  her                                                              
 district suffered  significant  damage  from the  earthquake  and                                                              
 many owner are losing  their condominiums. She asked  whether she                                                              
 would be the staff attorney to talk to about this issue.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
 MS. CAOUETTE answered no.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
 2:29:36 PM                                                                                                                   
 MS.  WALLACE   suggested  she   speak  to   Terry  Bannister   in                                                              
 Legislative Legal Services.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
 2:29:56 PM                                                                                                                   
 MS. CAOUETTE reviewed the last case listed on slide 9:                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
       Adkins v. Collens, 444 P.3d 187 (Alaska 2019) - AS                                                                       
      45.50.537(a)                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Legislative review is not recommended unless the                                                                     
         legislature intended to allow "full reasonable                                                                         
     attorney fees" to be calculated based on a contingency                                                                     
      fee agreement.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
   square4 Page 39                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
 MS.  CAOUETTE  said  in  this  case   the  Alaska  Supreme  Court                                                              
 considered  how  "full   reasonable  attorney  fees"   should  be                                                              
 calculated under  Alaska's Unfair  Trade  Practices and  Consumer                                                              
 Protection Act (UTPA)  and whether  the calculation may  be based                                                              
 on a  contingency  fee  agreement. The  UTPA  is  codified in  AS                                                              
 45.50,  and under  AS  45.50.537(a)  a  prevailing  plaintiff  is                                                              
 entitled to full reasonable  attorney fees, which is  not defined                                                              
 in the statute. In  determining the amount of attorney  fees, the                                                              
 superior court  concluded  that "full  reasonable attorney  fees"                                                              
 under  AS  45.50.537(a)  could  be  defined  by  the  contingency                                                              
 agreement executed by the  plaintiff and his counsel.  The Alaska                                                              
 Supreme Court held that  Alaska courts should instead  employ the                                                              
 "modified  lodestar"  method  in  calculating   "full  reasonable                                                              
attorney  fees"   under  AS  45.50.573(a).   Under  the  modified                                                               
lodestar  method, a  court  should first  determine  the baseline                                                               
lodestar  amount by  multiplying the  reasonable number  of hours                                                               
worked  by  a reasonable  hourly  rate  and  then  the  court may                                                               
consider a variety of  factors to determine whether to adjust the                                                               
calculated  amount.  The   Court  therefore  concluded  that  the                                                               
superior  court's  calculation  of  attorney  fees  based on  the                                                               
contingency  fee agreement  did not  constitute  "full reasonable                                                               
attorney fees"  under AS  45.50.537(a). The legislature  may want                                                               
to  review  this  case  if  the  court's  method  of  calculating                                                               
attorney fees is inconsistent with the legislature's intent.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR COGHILL  said it  sounds like the  Court got  it right, but                                                               
someone may wish to review it.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:31:49 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD asked  if any  authority reviews  and regulates                                                               
attorney fees  because she did  not consider any  of the attorney                                                               
fees she has encountered as reasonable.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CAOUETTE  answered  yes.  She  said  Rules  of  Professional                                                               
Conduct would  have a rule considering  reasonable attorney fees.                                                               
The  issue is  that the  term  was used  in the  statute  with no                                                               
explanation  of what that  term means  or how  to define  it. The                                                               
[Alaska Supreme Court] was  forced to look to other jurisdictions                                                               
to see  how that  was handled  under similar  Consumer Protection                                                               
Acts.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR COGHILL  said it was good  to flag, but  it sounds like the                                                               
Court found a methodology that was reasonable.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:32:41 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL said he was  curious how the term lodestar was used                                                               
to determine the baseline amount of attorney fees.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. CAOUETTE responded  she researched the term  but was not able                                                               
to find an explanation.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:33:22 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  BRUCE reviewed  slide  10, Delayed,  Repeals,  Enactments or                                                               
Amendments:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Laws enacted in 2008                                                                                                   
        square4 Ch. 15, SLA 2008, sec. 2 -- Capstone Avionics                                                                 
          Revolving Loan Fund - certain provisions repealed                                                                   
          July 1, 2020                                                                                                          
     Laws enacted in 2013                                                                                                   
        square4 Ch. 10, SLA 2013, sec. 34 -- Oil and Gas                                                                      
           Competitiveness Review Board - certain provisions                                                                  
           repealed February 28, 2021                                                                                           
      Laws enacted in 2014                                                                                                  
        square4 Ch. 61, SLA 2014, secs. 16, 22, and 23 -- Tax                                                                 
           Credits and Indirect Expenditures - certain                                                                        
           provisions repealed or amended December 31, 2020                                                                     
        square4 SB 130 (relating to AS 43.75.075 and 43.75.130(f)                                                               
           only)                                                                                                                
      Laws enacted in 2015                                                                                                  
        square4 Ch. 3, SLA 2015, sec. 6 -- School Bond Debt                                                                   
           Reimbursement - certain provisions repealed July                                                                   
           1, 2020                                                                                                              
        square4 HB 106                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
 MS. BRUCE  directed attention  to page  1 in  the 2019  Oversight                                                              
 Report. She said she complied the delayed  amendments and repeals                                                              
 that take affect  between February  29, 2020  and March  1, 2021.                                                              
 The first repeal  was enacted in  2008 for the  Capstone Avionics                                                              
 Revolving Loan Fund.  This fund and  program will be  repealed on                                                              
 July 1,  2020. The  program  allows the  Department of  Commerce,                                                              
 Community and  Economic Development  (DCCED), to  make loans  for                                                              
 the purchase and installation  of capstone avionics  equipment to                                                              
 the owner of  an aircraft that  logs a substantial  percentage of                                                              
 flight hours  in  the state.  The  Capstone  Avionics program  is                                                              
 designed to  improve tracking  and  safety on  planes. It  allows                                                              
 pilots to have a moving map video  display screen with additional                                                              
 information. It  also  allows air  traffic  control  to know  the                                                              
 precise  location  of a  downed  aircraft.  She  noted  that  the                                                              
 governor's  proposed budget  includes  an  appropriation  of  the                                                              
 balance of that  fund on June  30 to go  to DCCED for  the Alaska                                                              
 Development Team (AKDT).  She said the  balance is a  little less                                                              
 than $3 million.  If the fund is  not appropriated this  year and                                                              
 the fund is repealed  on July 1  as provided in 2008,  that money                                                              
 will lapse into the general fund.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR  COGHILL  recalled   the  discussion  about   the  Capstone                                                              
 Avionics program. Alaska had so many  aircraft incidents that the                                                              
 state took measures to improve tracking  and flight integrity. He                                                              
 said he is unsure if those issues are  resolved, but this will be                                                              
 a question for the legislature.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
 2:35:58 PM                                                                                                                   
 MS. CAOUETTE reviewed the next item on slide  10, laws enacted in                                                              
 2013, related to  the Oil and  Gas Competitiveness  Review Board,                                                              
 [listed  on  page 1  of  the  report].  These  statutes  will  be                                                              
 repealed on February 28,  2021. This board collects,  and reviews                                                              
information  related  to  oil and  gas  in  the  state  and makes                                                               
recommendations  to the  legislature. The  board's  final written                                                               
findings  and  recommendations  to  the  legislature  are due  on                                                               
January 31, 2021.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. CAOUETTE reviewed the next  item on slide 10, laws enacted in                                                               
2014, related  to Tax Credits and  Indirect Expenditures that are                                                               
scheduled to  be repealed.  She reviewed the  statutes, including                                                               
AS  43.75.035 and  AS 43.75.130  (f) relating  to the  salmon and                                                               
herring  product  development   tax  that  will  be  repealed  on                                                               
December 31,  2020. She noted  that SB 130,  currently before the                                                               
Senate Resources Standing  Committee extends these provisions and                                                               
repeals them on January 1, 2026.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. CAOUETTE  referred to AS  43.77.040, which  allows a taxpayer                                                               
who  harvests  a  fishery  resource  under  the provisions  of  a                                                               
Community  Development  Quota  to  claim  a  credit  for  certain                                                               
approved contributions  to a nonprofit  corporation. This statute                                                               
will  be  repealed  on December  31,  2020.  She  stated  that AS                                                               
43.77.050(b) will  be amended  on December  31, 2020 to  remove a                                                               
reference to the previous statute.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:38:18 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. BRUCE  reviewed the  next item on  slide 10,  laws enacted in                                                               
2015. Some  provisions related to school  bond debt reimbursement                                                               
restrict  bond   debt  reimbursement   for  school   bonds  by  a                                                               
municipality between January 1,  2015 and July 1, 2020. These are                                                               
currently scheduled  to be  repealed on July  1, 2020.  HB 106 is                                                               
currently  in  the Senate  Finance  Committee  that  would extend                                                               
these provisions to July 1, 2025.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:38:54 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD  asked if  the laws  enacted in 2013  related to                                                               
the Oil  and Gas  Competitiveness Review  Board correlated  to SB
21.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. CAOUETTE answered yes.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:39:40 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. CAOUETTE  reviewed slide 11, Delayed,  Repeals, Enactments or                                                               
Amendments:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Laws enacted in 2016                                                                                                   
        square4 Ch. 54, SLA  2016,   sec.   23   --   School                                                                  
          Accountability - certain provisions repealed July                                                                   
          1, 2020                                                                                                               
     Laws enacted in 2018                                                                                                   
        square4 Ch. 101, SLA 2018, secs. 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28,                                                                
           32, and 34 -- Education Tax Credits - certain                                                                      
           provisions amended December 31, 2020 and January                                                                     
           1, 2021                                                                                                              
      Laws enacted in 2019                                                                                                  
        square4 Ch. 18, SLA 2019, secs. 1 - 4 -- Prescription                                                                 
           Drugs - certain provisions amended March 1, 2020                                                                   
        square4 Ch. 4, FSSLA 2019, secs. 123 - 129 and 131 --                                                                 
           Crimes   and   Criminal   Procedure    -   certain                                                                 
           provisions enacted or amended January 1, 2020,                                                                       
           July 1, 2020, and September 1, 2020                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
 2:40:05 PM                                                                                                                   
 MS. CAOUETTE  reviewed the  laws  enacted in  2016. She  said AS                                                               
 14.07.175 is  scheduled to  be repealed on  July 1,  2020, which                                                               
 relates to the  development of  a statewide  assessment plan and                                                               
 review of education laws and regulations.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
 She reviewed  laws enacted  in 2018.  She said  various statutes                                                               
 relating to education  tax credits were scheduled  to be amended                                                               
 on January 1, 2021. This would  change the amount of the credits                                                               
 to 50 percent  of contributions  of cash and  equipment accepted                                                               
 for  certain  educational  purposes.   She  explained  that  the                                                               
 educational tax  credit computations  for contributions  will be                                                               
 changed to 50 percent on and after January 1, 2021.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
 MS. CAOUETTE reviewed laws enacted in 2019. She said two session                                                               
 laws (SLA) are  scheduled to be  amended. The  first one, Senate                                                               
 Bill 44, related to prescription  drugs. Several provisions will                                                               
 be amended  on March  1, 2020 to  allow physician  assistants to                                                               
 diagnose a patient and prescribe medication to a patient without                                                               
 conducting a  physical examination under  certain circumstances.                                                               
 She  said  this  authority  was passed  several  years  ago  for                                                               
 physicians and last year physician assistants were added.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
 2:41:33 PM                                                                                                                   
 MS.  CAOUETTE  said  HB  49,  related  to  crimes  and  criminal                                                               
 procedure, would amend and enact  certain statutes on January 1,                                                               
 2020 relating to sexual assault examination kits. It would amend                                                               
 and enact  statutes on  July 1,  2020  relating to  tracking and                                                               
 reporting data on felony sex offenses.  It would amend a statute                                                               
 on September 1, 2020 relating to  a person's duty to report harm                                                               
 to a  child  if the  harm  appears to  be  the result  of  a sex                                                               
 offense.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
 CHAIR COGHILL recalled that regulations needed to be implemented.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:42:34 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. WALLACE  reviewed slide 10, Historical  Oversight Reports are                                                               
available  on the  Internet  at https://intranet.akleg.gov/legal-                                                               
services/index.php?ou1=Legal%20Services&&bid=legal.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
She  related  that after  each  legislative  session,  the agency                                                               
prepares  a summary  of legislation  that passed  the legislature                                                               
and that report is also available on the intranet.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:43:34 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  HUGHES  asked  if  Legislative  Legal ever  updates  the                                                               
previous oversight reports  to reflect any subsequent changes the                                                               
legislature may have made  to clarify legislative intent and show                                                               
that   the   legislature  followed   up   on   Legislative  Legal                                                               
recommendations.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. WALLACE replied the  agency does not currently track that but                                                               
the legislature  could add  it to the  agency's responsibilities.                                                               
She said that  information is easily  ascertained and any members                                                               
who  had questions  could contact  the  agency to  find out  if a                                                               
specific statute was further amended.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:45:28 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR COGHILL  highlighted that  reviewing the  Legislative Legal                                                               
Services oversight  reports provides  an opportunity  to hear how                                                               
the court has  interpreted bills that  the legislature has passed                                                               
and to ask  questions. He added that he  was reluctant to add any                                                               
additional responsibilities to the agency.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:49:10 PM                                                                                                                    
There being  no further  business to  come before  the committee,                                                               
Chair Coghill  adjourned the Senate  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                               
meeting at 2:49 p.m.                                                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
2020 oversight report presentation Feb 18 2020.pptx SJUD 2/19/2020 1:30:00 PM