HOUSE BILL 43 "An Act relating to the crime of conspiracy." REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER testified in support of HB 43. 3 The proposed legislation creates a new crime of "conspiracy" in State law. An offender commits the crime if: * With intent to commit a "serious felon offense"; * The offender agrees with one or more to commit the offense; * The offender or one of the others perform an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. He stated that the adoption of the bill would provide Alaska law enforcement officers and prosecutors with a valuable tool which is available to law enforcement authorities in the federal system and in most other states. If sufficient evidence of a conspiracy is obtained, charges may be filed and arrests made before the conspirators actually commit the underlying planned serious felon offense. Representative Porter added, in addition to allowing the apprehension of offenders at an earlier stage of the planned crime, the adoption of a conspiracy law would permit the introduction of additional evidence in a trial. Thus, the jury would be permitted to hear, for example, more evidence about the overall drug operation, rather than being limited to evidence about specific drug sales on specific dates. The jury therefore would not view the sales in isolation, but would see the "big picture". In cases where the underlying offense was actually committed, defendants charged both with conspiracy and another crime may be more likely to cooperate with the prosecution in an effort to obtain a reduced charge; this may reduce the number of trials. Another potential cost- savings is that multiple defendants charged with conspiracy will be able to be tried jointly, rather than in separate trials as is generally required. (Tape Change, HFC 93 -36, Side 2). Representative Porter pointed out the Letter of Intent provided by the House Judiciary Committee. He thought the fiscal notes by the Department of Administration were questionable. Co-Chair MacLean asked for an explanation of an "overt act". Representative Porter stated there are definitions throughout other states although Alaska has not defined it to date. He provided the Committee with examples of "overt" crimes. Co-Chair MacLean questioned if a conspiracy was taking place 4 over the telephone, at which location would the crime be charged and a hearing determined. Representative Porter deferred the question to the Department of Law. He added it would not be a federal offense unless it was made over a state line. Co-Chair MacLean disagreed with the fiscal impact of the bill. Representative Hoffman stressed the expense of the proposed fiscal notes when currently, rural Alaska is experiencing insufficient representation due to limited public defenders and judges. Representative Porter acknowledged that there are problems existing in the rural areas and reemphasized his concern with the proposed fiscal impact. The court system in Alaska has not had experience in criminal trials. Representative Brown questioned how the proposed legislation would differ from other laws specifically A.S. 11.31.10, 11.16.10, 11.31.100. Representative Porter stated that there are solicitation and attempt crimes currently on the books and explained the difference between solicitation and conspiracy. Conspiracy fills a small and important gap particularly in drug crimes. Representative Brown asked if a person has a conversation with someone else regarding a crime to be committed, but does not commit the crime, could they be charged with that crime. Representative Porter replied, they could, if an overt act was the result of the conspiracy. Representative Brown asked the involvement of a person unaware of the criminal nature of the crime. Representative Porter stated that a crime of conspiracy does not occur with just a conversation, there must be at least one overt act before the offense occurs. Discussion followed regarding at which point a person would become guilty of an "overt" act. BRANT MCGHEE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY (OPA), ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, testified via teleconference. He clarified that the Office of Public Advocacy does not believe that the passage of the laws which recriminalize the use and possession of marijuana would lead to an onslaught of criminal cases. He pointed out that the fiscal note does not reflect an increase in case levels. The reasons for increased costs to the Office of Public Advocacy are three fold: * These are serious felony cases. Many hours will be involved in preparation for trial. * There will be multiple co-defendants. OPA is responsible for representing people with whom the public defender agency has a conflict of interest. 5 * Joint trialsaccrue greater trialcosts by prosecutingpeopleperipherallyinvolved.Joint trialsarerequiredandthesetrialsarelengthy. Mr. McGhee pointed out that there are federal conspiracy and federal drug laws in existence, both of which are used in Alaska. He questioned why the State is volunteering to undertake the responsibility of these costs. Representative Grussendorf interjected that he did not think the zero fiscal notes submitted by the Department of Law and the Department of Public Safety were reasonable. Co-Chair MacLean asked the difference between a conspiracy and being an accomplice. DEAN J. GUANELI, CHIEF, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, explained the different ways to commit offenses under criminal law. The conspiracy bill addresses conduct which does not go as far as aiding and assisting crime. The bill addresses the agreement between two people to commit a crime. Current Alaska law does cover some of these events, although, he pointed out that there are situations which can not be addressed without proposed legislation. Mr. Guaneli defined an "overt" act as something to be done in furtherance of a conspiracy. He pointed out that there is a definition included in the Senate version of the bill: "'Overt act' furthers conspiracy, an act of such character that it manifests the purpose on the part of the actor that the object of the conspiracy be completed." (Tape Change, HFC 93-37, Side 2). Representative Grussendorf reiterated his concern with the zero fiscal note provided by the Department of Law. Mr. Guaneli stated it would be possible to tie some of the cases together so that one conspiracy case can go to joint trial under the rules of evidence. He added that this type of legislation allows the jury to consider more evidence from the background of the criminal organization which becomes directly relevant to the conspiracy charge. This allows the prosecution to put together a stronger case against criminal organizations. HB 43 was placed in a subcommittee with Representative Hanley as Chair and with members Representative Hoffman and Representative Parnell. The bill was HELD in Committee for further discussion. k#hb69 6 HOUSE BILL 69 "An Act relating to registration of and information about sex offenders and amending Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c) and 32(b)." DOUG WOOLIVER, ATTORNEY, AIDE TO REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES, testified in support of HB 69. The proposed legislation would require all persons who are present in Alaska and have been convicted of sex crimes in Alaska or any other state to register with the Alaska State Troopers. For a period of years, they must provide the Troopers with updated information including their places of residence and employment. He added that by improving the access to information regarding sex offenders that reside in Alaska, HB 69 will better enable employers, volunteer coordinators and others to effectively screen those who may work around children or in any other position where people may be vulnerable. This is important because not only do sex offenders tend to have multiple victims, but they also frequently repeat their crimes even after serving time in prison. By being required to register, sex offenders may not only be less likely to commit such crimes again, but if they do, law enforcement personnel will have a better chance of identifying them as well as a better idea of where to find them. Representative Martin questioned the amount spent by the State to rehabilitation sex offenders. He felt that the proposed legislation would be discriminatory to individuals once convicted of a sex offense. Mr. Wooliver noted that it is questionable if rehabilitation can be effective for this type of crime. Representative Parnell pointed out the registration period would last between ten and twenty-five years. C. E. SWACKHAMMER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS), explained that the fiscal note submitted by DPS was based upon the need of one person assimilating the data information required and making computer entries. It also includes advertising costs. Representative Brown questioned the DNA type blood analysis. Mr. Swackhammer stated that DNA testing is comparable to finger printing. The cost and technology make implementation of this program prohibitive. Representative Brown pointed out her concerns with the DNA analysis and the confidentiality of that information. She asked that any redrafting of the legislation include scrutiny of DNA analysis and confidentiality of records. Discussion followed regarding insurance complications and 7 discrimination. Representative Brown concluded with two concerns: * It is unreasonable to assume that DPS could code, test, document and do applications for the requested fiscal note of $4 thousand dollars; * Fiscal note did not include persons in the rural areas. She felt that this was unequal application of the law. Mr. Swackhammer reminded Committee members that twenty-five percent of the Alaska jail population are sex offenders. This is one of the highest rates in the nation. One offender can affect as many as twenty-five or more lives. He added that the public deserves the right to protection. He emphasized that reasonable efforts must be made to try to provide that protection. Co-Chair Larson placed HB 69 in a subcommittee with Representative Therriault as Chair and with members Representative Brown and Representative Martin. HB 69 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.