HB 26 An Act revising Rule 15, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, relating to depositions, to adopt the comparable federal rule. CS HB 26 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Alaska Court System dated 1/26/95 and zero fiscal notes by the Department of Public Safety dated 1/26/95 and the Department of Law dated 1/26/95. HOUSE BILL 26 "An Act revising Rule 15, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, relating to depositions, to adopt the comparable federal rule." Representative Parnell explained that HB 26 would change the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure to permit depositions of victims and adverse witnesses only in exceptional 5 circumstances. Under the bill, the defense would retain access to statements taken by police and grand jury testimony of the victim and witnesses, as well as the ability to face the accuser at the trail. He added, in practice, Alaska's current Rule 15 enables defense attorneys to take numerous depositions of victims and witnesses, and would provide fertile ground for the discovery of abuse. The mishandling of that privilege slows the due process, unnecessarily burdens the courts, and serves to harass victims rather than promoting the ends of justice. MARGO KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, commented on the "exceptional circumstances" aspect of the proposed legislation. She stated that the proposed legislation would particularly be beneficial in some parts of the State. She added, the importance of discovery tools allows neither side to be surprised by the evidence of the other side. In civil cases, depositions provide the needed information from the other side. In criminal cases, specifically in Alaska, the prosecution provides all of the information that it has accumulated in an up front case to the defendant. Representative Brown referenced Page 2, Lines 7-11, and asked how the language would be changed by the proposed "discovery rule", Court Rule #16. Ms. Knuth responded that if the legislation was adopted as it is now and the federal Rule #16 was adopted, under that federal rule, defendants would not be given access to the grand jury material. She clarified that there would not be cause for concern if the federal Rule #16 was adopted. The State does not favor a "discovery bill" that would deny access to grand jury materials to defendants. In supporting CS HB 26 (JUD), the Department of Law assumes that the bill on "discovery" would allow defendants to obtain access to the grand jury material in the case against them. Representative Brown questioned the recorded statement from the law enforcement agency. Ms. Knuth replied, if the defendant does have access to the recorded statement, then the defendant is not going to be surprised by what the victim says at trial. If the defendant is surprised by what the victim says, the defendant should have access to the recorded material before a presumption is created, in which case there should not be a deposition. Representative Brown asked if the sponsor shared the Department of Law's position. Representative Parnell acknowledged that any evidence that negated the guilt of the defendant would be "discoverable" regardless of the source. 6 Ms. Knuth responded to a statement by Representative Brown regarding "opting in" through the deposition. Although, a court asking to allow a deposition of a victim or witness would then technically have another opportunity but because the victim could have participated in a reciprocal case, could be given the choice not too. Representative Brown pointed out the other pending legislation addressing the "discovery rule", Rule 16 and requested holding CS HB 26 (JUD) for further discussion with that legislation. Representative Parnell emphasized that the legislation stands on own. Regardless of the status of the other discovery legislation, CS HB 26 (JUD) addresses concerns not listed in that legislation. Representative Mulder MOVED to report CS HB 26 (JUD) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTIONS, it was reported out of Committee. CS HB 26 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Alaska Court System dated 1/26/95, the Department of Public Safety dated 1/26/95 and the Department of Law dated 1/26/95.