HOUSE BILL NO. 24 "An Act relating to self-defense in any place where a person has a right to be." 1:37:27 PM Vice-Chair Neuman stated that the change to the bill was the addition of the language, "or in any other place where the person has a right to be." He said that the language would allow a person the rights granted by the Castle Doctrine anywhere the person happened to be. 1:38:36 PM Representative Gara had questions for the Department of Law. 1:38:52 PM RICHARD SVOBODNY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW expressed that he was available to answer questions. 1:39:10 PM Representative Gara noted that existing statute already extended the right to self-defense anywhere a person felt threatened, and was not limited to home protection. Mr. Svobodny responded in the affirmative. Representative Gara asserted that people who believed that there was not an existing right to self-defense were misinformed. 1:40:12 PM Co-Chair Stoltze requested that Representative Gara ask his questions in a less leading manner. 1:40:17 PM Representative Gara inquired if an individual had the right to self-defense in public. Mr. Svobodny replied in the affirmative. Representative Gara believed that under current law a person could not chase someone down, kill them, and argue self-defense. 1:41:45 PM Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that Mr. Svobodny should not answer moral certitudes. He thought that Representative Gara's questioning was an unfair attempt to affirm his level of certitude. He instructed Mr. Svobodny to reply to "yes" or "no" questions. Representative Gara argued that he was simply asking questions of the department. Co-Chair Stoltze reminded Representative Gara that he was asking questions "through the Chair." 1:42:15 PM Mr. Svobodny believed that under current law, one had the right to chase a person one felt threatened by. Representative Gara asked if the right to self-defense could be lost if a person had the ability to not shoot with clear safety to themselves or others. Mr. Svobodny replied that a jury would decide that question after the fact. He did not believe that the person would be charged in a self-defense situation, provided the person doing the chasing believed that they were in danger of death or serious physical injury. 1:43:51 PM Representative Gara understood that under current law a person would lose the right to claim self-defense if the use of deadly force could have been avoided while safety was maintained. Mr. Svobodny discussed a similar Alaskan case where a person who was fleeing turned towards a homeowner and attempted to fire but the gun jammed. He furthered that as the person was running away with the jammed gun, the homeowner chased them a block and shot them; the homeowner had the duty to retreat as the person was running away, because he could have retreated safely. 1:45:36 PM Representative Gara gathered that in that scenario the homeowner did not have to chase the person and therefore lost the right to claim self-defense. Mr. Svobodny replied that you could not use deadly force against a person when there was no imminent threat to you or those around you; the amount of force must be reasonable to the circumstances. 1:47:06 PM Representative Gara queried how passage of the bill would change current law. Mr. Svobodny thought that there would be circumstances where the district attorney's job would be made more difficult by the question of whether deadly force should have allowed been used. He said that attorneys made that decision all of the time, but it became very clear if a person had the ability to retreat in absolute safety but chose not to. 1:48:00 PM Representative Gara stated that if there was no difference between the bill and current law then time was being wasted. He referred to AS 11.81.335(b): Sec. 11.81.335. Justification: Use of deadly force in defense of self. (a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a person who is justified in using non-deadly force in self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against (1) death; (2) serious physical injury; (3) kidnapping, except for what is described as custodial interference in the first degree in AS 11.41.320 ; (4) sexual assault in the first degree; (5) sexual assault in the second degree; (6) sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree; or (7) robbery in any degree. (b) A person may not use deadly force under this section if the person knows that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others being defended, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by leaving the area of the encounter, except there is no duty to leave the area if the person is (1) on premises (A) that the person owns or leases; (B) where the person resides, temporarily or permanently; or (C) as a guest or express or implied agent of the owner, lessor, or resident; (2) a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer's employment or a person assisting a peace officer under AS 11.81.380; (3) in a building where the person works in the ordinary course of the person's employment; or (4) protecting a child or a member of the person's household. Representative Gara reiterated his understanding that under current law: "……if a person was in a shopping mall, or someplace they were legally allowed to be, if with complete safety to yourself and others, you can go call the cops, you have to go call the cops. It seems to me the new bill says that exception "with complete safety to yourself and others" does not apply if you are in this new place. Are there circumstances where, if we pass this bill, where with complete personal safety to yourself and others you could have avoided conflict and could have avoided a shooting, are there circumstances under this bill where you will be allowed to shoot somebody even though you could have not done so with complete personal safety to yourself and others." Mr. Svobodny responded that the first thing that a prosecutor would consider would not be whether a person retreated, but whether the amount of force was appropriate for the circumstance. He explained that the bill represented a question of how one balanced the death of the person versus one's ability to not run away. He reiterated the real question came down to whether a person used reasonable or excessive force to defend themselves. 1:51:16 PM Representative Gara opined that the bill removed the burden of proof that as person acted in self-defense. He understood that currently if a person could avoid the situation with complete safety then the person had to retreat, HB 24 would give the person the right to confront the other person without first calling the police. Mr. Svobodny replied that under HB 24 there could be instances where reasonable people would walk away, while others would not and the situation could escalate to the use of deadly force. 1:53:39 PM Co-Chair Austerman asked if a person could chase someone outside their home with a gun down and shoot them in self- defense. Mr. Svobodny responded that current law allowed someone to follow an intruder out of their home and follow them down the street, even if the police told them not to, and if the intruder used deadly force against the person then the person could use deadly force in self-defense. 1:55:06 PM Vice-Chair Neuman observed that making judgment calls on particular instances was the job of the jury in a courtroom. Mr. Svobodny replied in the affirmative. Vice-Chair Neuman noted that Alaska law currently stated that a person had the duty to retreat. He argued that the bill weighed the right to defend yourself over your duty to retreat. Mr. Svobodny agreed that that was what the bill would do. He said that under current law the state had the obligation to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He said that currently, if a person did not retreat and the state could prove that they could have retreated in absolute safety then the court would not pass a self-defense instruction to the jury. 1:59:33 PM Representative Thompson asked if the mechanism used for deadly force would be a factor in court. Mr. Svobodny replied in the negative. He explained that the instrumentality made no difference; it was the amount of deadly force used that would be under consideration. 2:00:39 PM Co-Chair Stoltze observed that there are many different types of deadly force. 2:00:56 PM Representative Holmes inquired about the zero fiscal note, #3 (LAW). She wondered why it had been changed from indeterminate note to zero. Mr. Svobodny shared that when the note was first crafted he had approved it under the assumption that the law of the state was the majority rule in the country. He stated that he had recently discovered that in most of the states in the U.S., the majority rule was that there was no duty to retreat. He relayed that the other reason the fiscal note was changed from indeterminate to zero was because prosecutors would still need to work the cases just as they do now, and the responsibility would fall to the jury to determine the outcome. 2:05:19 PM Representative Holmes asked if the case was the same for other states that did not have duty to retreat laws. Mr. Svobodny said yes. 2:06:23 PM Representative Munoz probed the reasoning behind the changed fiscal note #3. Mr. Svobodny responded that he did not believe that that addition of the language, "or in any other place where the person has a right to be", would add to the trial process for self-defense cases. He did believe that the language could be litigated, but that did not change his view of the note. He said that self-defense cases were small in number for the department and would have to be litigated regardless. 2:08:52 PM Representative Gara recalled that the stance of the department in the past had been that Stand Your Ground legislation could unwittingly legalize gang violence. He asserted that this type of legislation could make it more difficult to prosecute gang violence cases because both gangs would claim self-defense. 2:10:46 PM Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the current Stand Your Ground legislation was HB 24. 2:12:05 PM Representative Gara asked if the department maintained its opinion on Stand Your Ground and gang violence. Mr. Svobodny replied that removing the duty to retreat could exasperate a gang violence situation. He believed that determining the aggressor would be difficult and that mutual aggressors would be unable to use self-defense as an excuse. He thought that the legislation could complicate prosecuting gang related situations because of the burden of proof for the state to prove the negative beyond a reasonable doubt. 2:14:36 PM Vice-Chair Neuman stated that significant language changes had been made while crafting the legislation due to previous testimony from the department. He felt that the department's concerns had been addressed. He said that the department had given contradictory testimony concerning arrest procedures self-defense cases. Mr. Svobodny replied that arrest procedures were subjective. He said that if the officer on the scene could figure out what was going on, not everyone would be arrested; however, if there were several people involved and all with weapons, those who were armed would be arrested. He opined that the hypotheticals were unlimited. 2:17:05 PM Vice-Chair Neuman offered another hypothetical. Mr. Svobodny reiterated that it was the responsibility of the department to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did not act in self-defense. He said it would be more difficult to convict someone who legitimately acted in self-defense. 2:18:39 PM Representative Costello discussed the four fiscal notes attached to the bill. 2:20:56 PM Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 24(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 2:21:16 PM CSHB 24(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with four previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1(ADM), FN2(ADM), FN3 (LAW), and FN4(DPS). AT EASE 2:27:09 PM RECONVENED