HB 64 - ANTI-STALKING LAW Number 364 MS. HORETSKI outlined the changes that had been made in the new committee substitute for HB 64. She noted that the most recent committee substitute was dated 2/26/93. She said that the title of the bill had been changed to reflect changes made in the body of the bill. She stated that new language appeared on page 2, line 26, of the committee substitute. A technical change had been made, she indicated, to make the language less wordy. MS. HORETSKI pointed out additional new language on page 2, line 6. At the request of the committee, the altered language provided that a stalker who possessed a deadly weapon would be guilty of a felony rather than a misdemeanor. At the bottom of page 2 and continuing on to page 3, Ms. Horetski noted the expanded definition of "family member." She indicated that the new language added "uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece" to other family members already mentioned. She noted that the language had been taken from elsewhere in existing law. MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to page 3, lines 4 and 5, where former spouses and past or present romantic partners were also added to the definition of "family member." She noted that the language changes regarding family members were an effort to include anyone who conceivably might be the target of a stalker. Number 445 REP. NORDLUND asked if all of the language changes were really necessary. Number 448 MS. HORETSKI called Rep. Nordlund's attention to the elements of stalking on page 2, line 21. She said that a person committed the crime of stalking if that person knowingly engaged in a course of conduct that placed another person in fear for themselves or in fear of death or physical injury to a family member. She gave an example of a woman breaking up with her boyfriend, and the boyfriend making threats toward her child; which would be a form of stalking. Number 456 REP. NORDLUND asked if in that instance the stalker would be stalking another individual (the child) and not the child's mother. Number 458 CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified the point by saying that if the action were directed at the child, then the child would be the victim. However, in other instances, the action was directed at a mother by making threats toward her child. MS. HORETSKI pointed out a change on page 4, lines 3 and 4, which she said was an alteration to the assault statutes, not the stalking law. She said section 3 was also new, describing what "family member" meant, in the assault statutes. This was a technical amendment, she noted. MS. HORETSKI pointed out that language on page 4, lines 23 to 26, was being moved to another section of the bill, on page 4, lines 3 to 5. Number 485 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that there was a relationship between the crimes of stalking, assault, and terroristic threatening. He said the changes that Ms. Horetski was delineating were an attempt to make the elements of all three of the crimes logical and consistent with each other. Number 494 MS. HORETSKI said that on the last page of the bill, section 8, there was a change to the maximum allowable probationary period, extending it for all crimes from five to up to ten years. Earlier versions of the bill had only changed the maximum probationary period for the crime of stalking, she said, and not for other crimes. MS. HORETSKI stated that there was new language in the applicability section stating that criminal convictions which occurred before the effective date of HB 64 would be considered "previous convictions" under the bill. She said an immediate effective date had been added to the bill, in section 11. Number 516 REP. KOTT mentioned a Senate bill which extended the period of probation from five to ten years. He said that if he were opposed to the Senate bill, he would also be opposed to HB 64. He stated that a recent report had indicated that the majority of new correctional system clients were in the system due to probation violations. He added that he was not sure if he would be willing to extend probation to ten years for every crime. Number 540 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Rep. Kott had brought up a legitimate point. He emphasized that the provision in the original bill extended the potential probation period to 99 years. He noted that the idea behind that provision was that there were people who fell into patterns of committing this type of crime who needed to be deterred from committing the same type of crime once released from incarceration. CHAIRMAN PORTER said the Department of Law found the 99-year probation period difficult to justify for stalking, in light of the fact that other severe crimes had shorter maximum probation periods. He said that in that light, it was decided to change the maximum period of probation from 99 years to ten years, and to extend the change to all crimes. Number 595 REP. PHILLIPS asked if the title of HB 64 were tight enough. Number 602 MS. HORETSKI replied that the title was accurate, but could be tightened. Number 610 REP. PHILLIPS said that the title seemed all right to her, but she had wanted to raise the issue. Number 614 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he did not anticipate the bill experiencing any problems in the Senate, as a result of a non-restrictive title. Number 621 REP. KOTT asked if the Department of Corrections had submitted a more recent fiscal note than the one dated February 19. REP. PHILLIPS commented that the committee should alert the Finance Committee that the Department of Corrections needed to submit another fiscal note. Number 651 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the Finance Committee would be an appropriate place to discuss the Department of Corrections' fiscal note. He suggested that HB 64 be held until the Department of Corrections could address its fiscal note. REP. NORDLUND indicated that he had to leave. Number 661 REP. PHILLIPS moved to pass CSHB 64 out of the Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations, and that the committee request that the Department of Corrections submit an amended fiscal note to the Finance Committee. She noted that the second part of her motion could be included in a letter of intent. Number 671 CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, ordered that CSHB 64 (JUD) be moved out of committee with individual recommendations. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 100 was the next item of business before the committee.