Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
05/03/2023 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB65 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 3, 2023
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Löki Tobin
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 65
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure; relating to the
crime of stalking; relating to consecutive sentencing for
violation of conditions of release; relating to the duty to
register as a sex offender; amending the definition of 'sex
offense'; amending the definition of 'crime involving domestic
violence'; relating to multidisciplinary child protection teams;
amending Rule 6(r), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 75(L&C)
"An Act relating to coverage for additional insureds under owner
and contractor controlled insurance programs; and providing for
an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 65
SHORT TITLE: HARASSMENT; SEX OFFENDERS & OFFENSES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/08/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/23 (S) JUD, FIN
04/19/23 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/19/23 (S) Heard & Held
04/19/23 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/03/23 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of SB
65.
KIM GUAY, Director
Office of Children's Services
Department of Family and Community Services; Member
Children's Justice Task Force
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of SB
65.
KRISTEN BENGE, Investigator
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of SB
65.
BARRY WILSON, Board Member
Standing Together Against Rape (STAR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of SB
65.
SAMANTHA MINTZ-GENTZ, Direct Service Provider
Standing Together Against Rape (STAR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 65.
KEELEY OLSON, Executive Director
Standing Together Against Rape (STAR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 65.
AMBER CHUNG, representing self
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 65.
DEVEN CUNNINGHAM, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 65.
VIKKI JO KENNEDY, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 65.
SUKI MILLER, Executive Director
Victims for Justice
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 65.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions about SB 65.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:31:14 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Kaufman, Tobin, and Chair Claman.
SB 65-HARASSMENT; SEX OFFENDERS & OFFENSES
1:31:52 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 65
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure; relating to the
crime of stalking; relating to consecutive sentencing for
violation of conditions of release; relating to the duty to
register as a sex offender; amending the definition of 'sex
offense'; amending the definition of 'crime involving domestic
violence'; relating to multidisciplinary child protection teams;
amending Rule 6(r), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
1:32:14 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to invited testimony.
1:32:26 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), Anchorage, Alaska, stated
that much of SB 65 updates or fixes gaps in the law. She said
ANDVSA supports the provisions that somebody who violates a
stalking order could be charged with stalking in the first
degree; somebody who violates their conditions of release could
be subject to additional jail time; and persons required to
register as sex offenders have to give more information and
notify the Department of Public Safety (DPS) if they are leaving
the state or will be gone for longer than seven days. ANDVSA
also supports the expansion of the crime of domestic violence to
include unlawful contact and interfering with a report of
domestic violence. She stated that the most significant change
is to allow witnesses to summarize the testimony of other
witnesses before the grand jury if the prosecutor believes that
the evidence will be admissible at trial. She relayed that in
her experience, the grand jury process is among the most
traumatic events a victim experiences after experiencing a
violent crime. All felony-level assault and sexual assault cases
go through the grand jury process that currently requires a
victim to be physically present to testify.
In Alaska, the criminal justice process includes a trauma-
informed system to get the information needed for an
investigation from the victim with the least additional trauma
possible. For child victims of sexual assault, the child
advocacy center provides a trained forensic interviewer with a
camera to conduct the interview for the grand jury. For adult
victims, a sexual assault response team with an investigator, a
forensic nurse, and a victim advocate come together so the
victim only has to tell their story once and has access to
support services during and after the interview.
MS. STANFILL stated that the system can easily be seen as a
system that inflicts trauma on victims. Trauma can shut down
episodic memory, fragment the sequence of events, and cause the
brain to put together just pieces and parts of the memory. The
initial investigation is done when that is the memory but by the
time the grand jury meets the victim's memories have come
together in a more linear process. The defense often uses the
difference in the account between the investigation and the
grand jury to say the victim is lying. The grand jury can also
be delayed and rescheduled on short notice, which can be harmful
to victims. She emphasized that from the victim's perspective,
no part of the grand jury process works for victims. She said
ANDVSA appreciates that this aspect of the criminal justice
system is being reviewed and they look forward to working with
the legislature and the court system to develop a more trauma-
informed approach to the grand jury.
1:37:34 PM
KIM GUAY, Director, Office of Children's Services (OCS),
Department of Family and Community Services; Member, Children's
Justice Task Force, Anchorage, Alaska, articulated support for
two provisions in SB 65. The first is the provision relating to
the multidisciplinary team response to children who have engaged
in sexual behavior with other children under the age of 13. For
years OCS has been trying to figure out how to serve this
population and SB 65 provides a preventative measure that would
allow children to be seen at a child advocacy center and
connected to medical or mental health services. She provided an
example of an eight-year-old who had sexualized behavior on a
six-year-old child.
She stated that the other piece of SB 65 that OCS is
particularly interested in is the grand jury proceeding and the
services a child advocacy center can provide. Under the current
process, these children often do not have any time to engage in
any kind of therapeutic services before they go before a grand
jury which can create more trauma. People working in a child
advocacy center are forensically trained to help children share
their stories in a defensive and culturally responsive way. She
reiterated particular support for these parts of SB 65.
1:41:17 PM
KRISTEN BENGE, Investigator, Alaska State Troopers, Department
of Public Safety, Wasilla, Alaska, shared that before becoming a
Trooper she worked in Tennessee supervising sex offenders. She
had to testify frequently and provide sole testimony on
offenders' new cases. When she joined AST she initially worked
in the Mat-Su Valley and Nome and is now on the Child Abuse
Investigation Unit. She works at the Children's Place Child
Advocacy Center which has forensically trained interviewers who
prepare child victims to give testimony to a grand jury. She
described a case and encouraged legislators to view the
situation as if it was their child. In that case, a five-year-
old girl made a disclosure that prompted a report of harm to OCS
and the Child Abuse Investigation Unit. During a forensic
interview, she described physical and sexual abuse by her
father. Following the disclosure she had a trauma response that
affected the entire household. To date, the child has repeated
her disclosure three times and she still has to go before the
grand jury, which is not set up to accommodate children. She
emphasized how important it is to reduce the number of times the
child victim has to repeat that narrative.
MS. BENGE stated that this provision allows prosecutors to make
logical decisions about the information presented to the grand
jury without having a negative impact on the victims.
1:46:27 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked for the age of the child in the example.
MS. BENGE replied that the child in the example was five years
old but as currently written, any victim would have to come
before the grand jury.
1:47:10 PM
BARRY WILSON, Board Member, Standing Together Against Rape
(STAR), Anchorage, Alaska, stated that as a former Alaska State
Trooper he had interviewed children and adults who were
traumatized by offenders and then re-traumatization by having to
retell the events to multiple strangers, sometimes over the
course of years. He shared that members of his family have been
victims of crime so he's personally acquainted with the victim's
side of the process. SB 65 would reduce the number of times a
victim has to recount their traumatic story to strangers. He
described an exercise he had used to educate students about how
victims are re-traumatized by having to retell what happened to
them. Alaska has some of the highest rates of sexual assault,
child abuse, and domestic violence in the country, yet the
current process makes it difficult on victims to indict these
cases. Most states don't do this, so Alaska is behind the curve.
The costs on law enforcement, the court, the prosecution, and
the victims are huge and unnecessary. He concluded that it's
time to turn a new page and stop revictimizing victims of crime.
1:51:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 65.
1:52:30 PM
SAMANTHA MINTZ-GENTZ, Direct Services Provider, STAR, Anchorage,
Alaska, testified on Section 12 of SB 65 relating to
admissibility of evidence and the accuracy of children's
statements and their wellbeing as a victim witness. She
referenced the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that
addresses the negative impacts of testimony on child victim
witnesses. She said the evidence shows that testifying
repeatedly is associated with long term mental health problems,
and testifying about severe abuse is associated with higher
levels of trauma-related problems. Using a two-way video is less
stressful on children and provides more accurate and detailed
information than in person testimony in a courtroom. She
disagreed with the notion that juries show a bias when a child
witness testifies remotely. She concluded that AAP recommends
that only qualified individuals question children. This would
exclude grand jury members from directly questioning minors as
they are able to do today.
1:54:45 PM
KEELEY OLSON, Executive Director, STAR, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 64, recounting her experience working
with a six-year-old boy who was a victim of child sexual abuse.
His father caught the offender in the act and beat him up. She
described waiting outside the courtroom until it was the child's
time to testify before the grand jury and having to explain that
his daddy could not testify for him. She said victim advocates
have to convince themselves that what they're doing to the child
is okay and somehow empowering the child, but it's not. She
concluded that STAR supports SB 65 in its entirety, but
especially in regard to survivors not having to testify to a
grand jury.
1:57:28 PM
AMBER CHUNG, representing self, Bethel, Alaska, stated that she
is a forensic interviewer who works closely with the local Child
Advocacy Center. She said she'd like to add her voice in support
of SB 65, especially as it pertains to protecting minors from
being retraumatized by grand jury testimony, expanding the scope
of CACs in providing services to children under age 13 who are
engaging in problematic sexual behaviors, and the in-state
registration of sex offenders.
1:58:24 PM
DEVEN CUNNINGHAM, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 65. He stated that he is a retired
officer with the Anchorage Police Department who worked in the
Crimes Against Children Unit for 17 years. He relayed his
experience that children that have to testify are not only
terrified but also harmed by the experience. He said the reason
Alaska has CACs is to lessen the trauma; interviews are recorded
so the grand jury can not only hear the testimony but see the
child's body language. He said the dynamics of these situations
are far-reaching and he wanted to add his support for the bill.
2:00:16 PM
VIKKI JO KENNEDY, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, stated
support for SB 65 as a victim of abuse who could not deal with
the grand jury process. She expressed appreciation for the
people from STAR, the other testifiers, and the committee for
hearing the bill.
2:02:22 PM
SUKI MILLER, Executive Director, Victims for Justice, Anchorage,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 65, which will reduce rates
of re-traumatization for victims of violent crime. She said it's
frustrating that victim rights are addressed in statute and the
constitution but offenders only receive a slap on the wrist. She
opined that requiring victims of violent crime to testify at
grand jury furthers the trauma.
2:03:27 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on SB 65.
2:03:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Skidmore for his perspective on why youth
were being asked to testify if there was already a hearsay
exception for children under age 10. He also asked whether
children older than age ten currently were allowed to provide
telephonic testimony.
2:04:41 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska, recapped that SB 65 does
six things. The first deals with grand jury; the second requires
out-of-state sex offenders to register if they move into the
state; the third adds a violation of a stalking or sexual
assault protective order to stalking in the first degree; the
fourth allows CACs to interview children under the age of 13;
the fifth requires consecutive sentencing for violation of
conditions of release; the sixth amends the definition of
domestic violence by adding unlawful contact and interfering
with the report of domestic violence to Title 18.
MR. SKIDMORE referenced testimony during the first hearing and
clarified that the bill allows the evidence an investigator has
gathered to be summarized at the time of grand jury, and that
the summary of testimony does not implicate any constitutional
rights. He also noted that the rule change was requested for
expediency.
CHAIR CLAMAN countered that lawyers sometimes get things done
faster than the legislature.
CHAIR KAUFMAN commented that competing against the speed of the
legislature wasn't exactly a high-water mark.
2:08:45 PM
MR. SKIDMORE responded that he appreciated the point, but the
Rules Committees associated with the Bar Association typically
take 18 months to two years to get anything done on the rules
that come before them. He also noted that the change for grand
jury was a direct rule change in legislation sponsored by
Senator Hollis French that passed unanimously by both bodies in
2005. He referenced State v. Powell, 487 P.3d 609 (Alaska Ct.
App. 2021) ("Powell") that states that the legislature did not
amend this rule. The court of appeals was inviting the
legislature to amend the rule if that was the intention. He
opined that it was important for this to be addressed.
Responding to Senator Claman's question about individuals under
the age of five having to testify, he relayed that Powell has
questioned video testimony, even when children are under age 10.
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that he asked about the existing rule
that the bill proposes to delete that says for a child under the
age of 10 there are provision for providing hearsay testimony.
He referenced the invited and public testimony that talked about
child witnesses under the age of 10 who were required to
testify. Given the existing rule about hearsay presentation, he
asked why that evidence wouldn't be presented by hearsay to
avoid traumatizing the victim. He asked when the Powell case
occurred.
2:11:41 PM
MR. SKIDMORE stated that it was in 2019.
CHAIR CLAMAN said the Powell case may change things, but why was
a five-year-old girl required to testify live in 2015 instead of
it being presented by hearsay.
2:12:19 PM
MR. SKIDMORE responded that the testimony from Investigator
Benge was about a case that occurred after 2019 and that case is
currently pending. He added that he didn't know whether the case
Keely Olson described was prior to 2005 when a summary of the
testimony was allowed to occur.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if he was saying that the Powell case
specifically prohibits the testimony of a child under the age of
10 or that the case simply raised questions about that.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the Powell case raised significant
questions about the testimony of a child under the age of 10;
the case itself involved a child over the age of 10. He believed
that Powell also raised questions about this particular
provision and the intent is to clarify that. He said he would
submit that there are many victims over the age of 10, including
adults, which are retraumatized by the grand jury process. He
said SB 65 goes much further than what was proposed in 2005. It
looks at the bigger picture and why citizens are continuing to
be traumatization by the way they have to present testimony to
the grand jury. He opined that all citizens should have this
benefit that is clearly constitutional because it's done by the
federal government and 29 states. It makes sense for Alaska to
follow suit.
2:14:15 PM
MR. SKIDMORE responded to the question related to telephonic
testimony and having to travel to testify at the grand jury. He
confirmed that a court rule provides that someone who lives more
than 50 miles away may testify telephonically. He relayed that
Dillingham does all grand jury testimony telephonically, and his
experiences was that telephonic testimony is not easier than in
person. He offered his perspective that it is easier to walk a
child through the process when you can interact with them and
see their body language. He noted that the change proposed in SB
65 is not a mandate; it simply authorizes the summary to occur,
but prosecutors may still want to hear directly from witnesses
in certain cases. He opined that both victims and grand jurors
support this change.
2:16:21 PM
SENATOR TOBIN recapped that the Powell case involved a 14-year-
old victim who submitted hearsay evidence to the grand jury even
though Criminal Rule 6(r) indicates that only a child under age
10 has the ability to submit hearsay evidence. She asked what
the decision-making process was because it seems that it was
done with intent.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that Alaska Evidence Rule 801(d)(3)(B)
provides an exception to the hearsay rule and that was used to
allow the video interview of the victim. The court of appeals
disagreed and held that the rule applied to trials but not grand
jury.
2:17:29 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked why the bill proposes such a wholesale
change in Section 12 to Criminal Rule 6(r), as opposed to
changing the age of a child from under the age of 10 to under
the age of 18. In particular the bill eliminates a peace officer
from presenting the hearsay evidence even though testimony
highlighted the value of a peace officer providing that
information. She asked why all of that language was being
removed and replaced with a provision that says the prosecutor
believes.
2:18:49 PM
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the language being removed from
Section 12 was the various hearsay exceptions that were
identified in the rule. He said SB 65 is drafted to be much
broader; it says the prosecutor must believe that the
information will be admissible at trial. Similar to the federal
system, the prosecutor would solicit that information from the
law enforcement officer who is summarizing. He acknowledged that
the proposed amendment to the rule doesn't specify the law
enforcement officer, but he didn't know who other than the
officer would be appropriate to summarize the child's testimony.
To the specific question about simply changing the age threshold
or whatever else the summary should apply to, he acknowledged
that it was a policy call.
2:20:42 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked why the Department of Law believes the
wholesale change to the rule is the best approach.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the federal government takes this
approach with grand juries and it's similar to the way 29 other
states approach evidence to grand juries. He opined that this
creates efficiency in the system and respects the rights of
victims who have been subject to very traumatizing crimes. He
provided hypothetical examples.
2:24:25 PM
SENATOR TOBIN expressed appreciation for his passion but said
that it sounded as though the burden of proof was being placed
on the accused. Thus her great consternation with such a
wholesale change. Her belief was that this should fall within
the purview of the courts, particularly relating to Criminal
Rule 6(r).
2:25:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the department took live
videoconference testimony in grand jury during Covid and if that
was a permanent or temporary Court Rule change.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that limited exceptions were allowed during
Covid for streaming video presentations for the grand jury. None
of those exceptions were permanent.
2:26:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the simplest way to address the
questions raised in the Powell case would be to modify the
criminal rule that allows hearsay evidence to be presented to
the grand jury the same way that it's admissible at trial.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that part of the analysis for Powell was
that a defense attorney can ask questions at trial. Further,
other conditions were established for the hearsay exception that
the court found did not exist equally at grand jury. He opined
that saying evidence that is admissible at grand jury is
admissible at trial could still be limiting because of the
differences between the two. He said he understood the concept
of the simple fix, and it could be done, but the language
wouldn't be as simple as the Chair described. He reiterated that
more limited changes could be put in place if the committee was
uncomfortable with the broad changes the bill proposes.
2:28:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN found no further questions or comments and
announced that he would hold SB 65 in committee.
2:28:58 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:28 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 65 version A 2.8.2023.PDF |
SJUD 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/3/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Transmittal Letter version A 2.7.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/3/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Highlights version A 2.6.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/3/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Sectional Analysis version A 2.8.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/3/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Letters of Support - Received as of 3.22.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/3/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Supporting Testimony - Received as of 3.24.2023.pdf |
SJUD 5/3/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Fiscal Note DOA-OPA 2.7.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/3/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Fiscal Note DOA-PDA 2.7.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/3/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO 2.6.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/3/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Fiscal Note LAW-CJL 2.7.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/3/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.6.2023.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/3/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 4.28.2023.pdf |
SJUD 5/3/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |