SB 122-VICTIM DEFINITION  4:41:26 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 122, "An Act relating to the definition of 'victim.'" CHAIR CLAMAN stated that Legislative Legal & Research services has permission to make any technical or conforming changes to the bill. 4:42:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved Amendment 1, labeled 32-LS0422\B.1 Dunmire 5/13/21, which read as follows: Page 1, line 10: Delete "adult" Insert "[ADULT]" CHAIR CLAMAN objected. 4:42:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER stated that the proposed amendment pertained to page 2, on line 1 and, without the adoption of the proposed amendment, the term "adult" in the bill could allow for an instance where a parent is a victim and is not deceased but becomes incapacitated and a minor child would not be allowed to engage the process in the same way in an instance where a parent would become deceased. 4:44:41 PM SENATOR LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, answered that the proposed amendment appeared to be a sensible one and would create consistency between the language appearing on page 2, on line 1. She suggested that the original bill may have contained a drafting error but that the intention had been that an adult child would be eligible for victims' benefits. She noted that "adult child" was included intentionally and was based on the scenario that she had described in previous testimony. CHAIR CLAMAN asked Senator Reinbold to confirm that she did not support the proposed amendment, which she confirmed that she did not. 4:47:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA suggested that on page 2, on lines 1 and 2, there exist other potential victims that could be further defined. He referred to the underlying statute and suggested that family members of victims are also victims. He asked he rationale for not including both adult and minor children in the definition. 4:49:47 PM ANDREW DUNMIRE, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal & Research Services, answered that the determination to adopt the amendment would be one of legislative policy. He explained that should the amendment be adopted, and a scenario existed in which the victim of the crime was incapacitated but still able to testify, it could be interpreted that a minor child would be able to testify instead of the victim. REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the definition of a victim was an individual who may wish to engage in litigation. MR. DUNMIRE answered that the statute was a procedural statute used in criminal litigation and pertains to who shall be allowed to testify at a bail hearing or a sentencing hearing and does not apply to civil litigation. He further explained that, in the case that an offender escapes custody, the Department of Corrections has a statutory obligation to notify the victims of the crime and the definition contained in the statute would determine who should be notified. 4:51:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked that, in the case that the proposed law was interpreted that a minor child would be able to testify instead of the victim, would the proposed amendment prohibit a minor from being allowed to testify on an incapacitated victim's behalf. MR. DUNMIRE answered that is a policy decision and not necessarily problematic in the way that had been described. 4:53:33 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked the Department of Law to answer how the Department of Law or Department of Corrections would meet its victim notification of escape or parole in current practice and what would change if the amendment was adopted. 4:54:25 PM KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office, Criminal Division, Department of Law, answered that the current practice of notification is as inclusive as possible on the part of the Department of Law. She stated that the statute would not prohibit notification but that a guardian may be required to be involved in the notification. She predicted no change to the practice of notification should Amendment 1 be adopted. 4:55:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA expressed his confusion that there exist two different lists regarding who can speak on behalf of an incapacitated victim and asked why the two lists should differ. CHAIR CLAMAN added that legal theory is that minors are not legally considered competent to speak on his/her own behalf despite his/her actual ability to do so. He asked Mr. Dunmire whether the definition in subsection (b) was because of that theory. MR. DUNMIRE shared that his experience during practicing criminal law for over 10 years had involved many minor children offering testimony. He suggested that judges would have concern that a child would be capable of telling a truth from a lie and that minor children are often deemed capable of testifying in court. 4:58:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA offered to clarify his question to extend to subsection (b) and (c) in which there exist individuals qualified to speak on behalf of the direct victim of a crime and who had become incapacitated and unable to speak on his/her own behalf, and asked why it was proposed that there be two separate lists for one victim who was unable to testify due to his/her death and another in the case that he/she was unable to testify due to incapacitation. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER suggested that the amendment be revisited to ensure the intent to include equal representation for victims who are unable to testify. SENATOR REINBOLD stated that discussions had taken place in the other body and the conceptual intention of the proposed amendment had been discussed and it had been decided to maintain the narrow focus of the change to existing statute due to the case of a deceased parent's two teenage daughters not being allowed to testify on behalf of their mother. CHAIR CLAMAN asked the invited representative from the Office of Victims' Rights to opine on whether to delete the word "adult" as proposed in Amendment 1. 5:02:25 PM SHAUN SEHL, Victims Advocate Attorney, Alaska Office of Victims' Rights, answered that her office had not experienced the courts misinterpreting subsection 19(b) and it would permit a parent of a live child who is not incapacitated or incompetent to advocate for his/her minor child. She provided an example in which a victim may be a minor and have experienced sexual assault and a parent could advocate for his/her child. 5:04:38 PM The committee took an at-ease from 5:04 to 5:11 p.m. 5:11:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked the what reasons exist to have two lists of associations to the victim of a crime to be eligible to advocate for the victim. MS. SEHL answered that there exist situations in which a minor may not wish or are not able to testify on his/her own behalf, and in the case that they are still living, there should be a provision to allow for an adult to advocate on his/her behalf. REPRESENTATIVE KURKA stated that subsection (b) did not pertain only to minor victims, and he asked whether the lists in (b) and (c) could be combined. MS. SEHL answered that it would be her preference to see proposed language to fully examine upon which to offer an opinion. 5:16:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there exist any known concerns or pitfalls that could be examined pertaining to the effect of adopting Amendment 1. CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that an alternative to the proposed amendment could be considered and offered to the committee timely. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER withdrew Amendment 1. CHAIR CLAMAN announced that SB 122 would be held over.