HB 24 - SELF DEFENSE  1:06:06 PM CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 24, "An Act relating to self-defense in any place where a person has a right to be." CHAIR KELLER noted that the committee had addressed a previous iteration of HB 24 during the last legislature. 1:07:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 24 and mentioning the castle doctrine, explained that the bill was introduced because he'd felt it necessary to address the concerns of his constituents and other Alaskans regarding their ability to defend themselves. House Bill 24 would clarify that [the affirmative defense of self-defense could be available to anyone who uses] deadly force in any place he/she has a right to be. The bill would add a new paragraph (5) to AS 11.81.335(b), thereby stipulating that [there is no duty to leave the area if the person is] in any place where the person has a right to be. 1:09:40 PM REX SHATTUCK, Staff, Representative Mark Neuman, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Neuman, one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 24, noted that current statutes [addressing the affirmative defense of self-defense] outline the circumstances under which the use of nondeadly force is justified, and the circumstances under which the use of deadly force is justified. Under the bill's proposed new AS 11.81.335(b)(5), he elaborated, a person may not use deadly force under [AS 11.81.335] if the person knows that with complete personal safety and with complete safety 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 in any place where the person has a right to be. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether existing AS 11.81.335(b)(1) and (3) should be deleted as superfluous given that proposed new paragraph (5)'s language, "in any place  where the person has a right to be", would include the locations currently outlined in those paragraphs (1) and (3): premises that the person owns or leases, premises where the person resides at, premises where the person is the guest or agent of the owner, lessor, or resident, and a building where the person works in the ordinary course of his/her employment. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN concurred with regard to the locations outlined in existing paragraphs (1) and (2), and remarked that the bill would allow any person who isn't trespassing to use deadly force "before it happens." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, concurring with Representative LeDoux, expressed interest in deleting existing paragraphs (1) and (3) from AS 11.81.335(b). MR. SHATTUCK relayed that the bill is intended to clarify that if one isn't trespassing, there is no duty to retreat. 1:17:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how the terms, "area of the encounter" as used in existing AS 11.81.335(b), and, "the person's household" as used in existing AS 11.81.335(b)(4), were defined; existing paragraph (4) says in part, "protecting a child or a member of the person's household". He also raised the issue of using deadly force to defend a third person who is not a member of the household. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN relayed that the term, "the person's household" is defined in statute, and surmised that the courts would address a particular person's actions on a case-by-case basis at trial. MR. SHATTUCK added that existing AS 11.81.340 addresses the use of force in defense of a third person who is not a member of the household. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, raising the issue of surplusage, again expressed interest in deleting existing paragraphs (1) and (3) from AS 11.81.335(b). REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, in response to comments and questions, relayed that HB 24 wouldn't be making any other changes to existing law, and explained that the bill was drafted as it was at the drafter's recommendation. MR. SHATTUCK added that the bill is intended to clarify that a person has the ability to defend himself/herself, and reiterated that under the bill's proposed change, there would be no duty to retreat if the person is any place he/she has a right to be. CHAIR KELLER pointed out that under both existing law and the bill, the standard is one of "knowing"; under subsection (b) of AS 11.81.335, if one "knows" that one can avoid using deadly force while remaining completely safe simply by leaving the area, then one may not use deadly force [under AS 11.81.335]. MR. SHATTUCK - after paraphrasing a quote by U.S. Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., from Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." - characterized the duty to retreat as an awful burden. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his understanding that the fiscal notes submitted for HB 24 indicate that the bill won't impact the departments' ability to do their jobs. 1:33:22 PM RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), said simply that the DPS is neutral on HB 24. In response to a question, he explained that passage of the bill would not impact how the DPS investigates deaths, and that it would be up to the Department of Law (DOL) to determine how to charge a person in any given case. 1:35:34 PM QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), in response to a question, clarified that the statute being changed by HB 24 doesn't mandate that an attacked person retreat, but instead simply stipulates that if the person can retreat in complete safety, he/she doesn't then have the statutory authority to go so far as to use deadly force in response to the attack. This has been borne out in case law. In response to further questions, he relayed that the terms, "deadly force" and "household member" are defined in statute; offered his belief that the statutory definition of the term, "household member" found in AS 18.66.990(5) would be used in cases involving Title 11, since there is already a reference in Title 11 to that Title 18 definition; surmised that passage of the bill wouldn't change the arguments raised in court, or their outcomes, in cases involving [the affirmative defense of self-defense]; and paraphrased from AS 18.66.990(5), which read: (5) "household member" includes (A) adults or minors who are current or former spouses; (B) adults or minors who live together or who have lived together; (C) adults or minors who are dating or who have dated; (D) adults or minors who are engaged in or who have engaged in a sexual relationship; (E) adults or minors who are related to each other up to the fourth degree of consanguinity, whether of the whole or half blood or by adoption, computed under the rules of civil law; (F) adults or minors who are related or formerly related by marriage; (G) persons who have a child of the relationship; and (H) minor children of a person in a relationship that is described in (A) - (G) of this paragraph; 1:46:43 PM BRIAN JUDY, Senior State Liaison, National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), said the NRA strongly supports HB 24, which he characterized as important self-defense legislation. Under the bill, he surmised, only a person who is justified in using deadly force won't have to retreat from any place he/she has a legal right to be, and thus the question to be addressed [in any case wherein the affirmative defense of self-defense is pursued] will be whether the person really was justified, and existing law already outlines what constitutes justification, with AS 11.81.330 first addressing both justification for the use of nondeadly force and the circumstances under which nondeadly force wouldn't be justified, and with AS 11.81.335(a) then addressing justification for the use of deadly force. Specifically, AS 11.81.335(a) stipulates that a person who is justified in using nondeadly force may [instead] use deadly force in defense of himself/herself when [and to the extent] he/she reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to defend against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping [that is not custodial interference in the first degree,] sexual assault [in the first or second degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree,] or robbery. Under the bill, [in pursuing the affirmative defense of self-defense,] as long as [the person could prove both that] he/she was justified in using the deadly force and that the encounter took place somewhere where he/she had a right to be, the person would no longer have to also prove that he/she first ascertained that he/she couldn't leave the area in complete safety. MR. JUDY, in conclusion, opined that victims should have the protection of law when they stand their ground and defend themselves while they are someplace they have a right to be, and urged the committee to support HB 24. In response to questions, he surmised that deleting existing AS 11.81.335(b)(1) and (3) would remove language made redundant by the bill's proposed new AS 11.81.335(b)(5); and characterized Alaska's statutes [addressing the affirmative defense of self-defense] as fairly logical and typical. 2:03:15 PM MIKE COONS - after referring to his work-related "use of force continuum" training and his training for carrying a concealed weapon - opined that HB 24 would protect those who have to use deadly force to defend themselves from an attack, from then being further victimized during the resulting court proceeding. 2:06:37 PM SCOTT HAMANN relayed that he is pleased to see HB 24's proposed change [to the statutes addressing the affirmative defense of self-defense] regarding places where a person has a right to be, characterized the bill as important, concurred that perhaps any resulting redundant language could be deleted, expressed support for HB 24, and urged its passage. CHAIR KELLER, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 24. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, in conclusion, observed that deleting existing AS 11.81.335(b)(1) and (3) could have an effect, and surmised that they were included in existing law for a reason. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT expressed a concern that deleting those provisions could result in more questions being raised at trial. CHAIR KELLER, in response to a question, noted that the Department of Law (DOL) had provided testimony on the aforementioned previous iteration of HB 24 during the last legislature. Chair Keller then relayed that HB 24 would be held over.