HB 66-CONTROLLED SUB.;HOMICIDE;GOOD TIME DEDUC.  3:05:55 PM CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to homicide resulting from conduct involving controlled substances; relating to the computation of good time; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was the HB 66, as amended on 3/6/23.] 3:06:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 66, Version 33-GH1482\B, Radford, 3/20/23, as the work draft. REPRESENTATIVE GRAY objected. 3:06:50 PM JAKE ALMEIDA, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Vance, provided a summary of changes in the proposed CS for HB 66, "Version B", which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 2 of the bill was amended to make delivering a schedule IA, IIA, IIIA, or IVA controlled substance to a person who is mentally incapable, incapacitated, or unaware that a controlled substance is being delivered misconduct involving a controlled substance in the first degree (unclassified felony); • Section 3 adds definitions associated with the changes in section 2; and • Section 4 creates an enhanced sentencing range of 7- 11 years for those who are convicted of delivering a schedule IA controlled substance. MR. ALMEIDA noted that Version B simply incorporated the amendments adopted by the committee on 3/6/23. 3:09:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY expressed his concern about the changes included in the proposed CS. He suggested that Version B inaccurately reflected the amendments that were adopted on 3/6/23 and asked how off-record conversations among members had resulted in the work draft before the committee. 3:10:01 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 3:10:49 PM CHAIR VANCE explained that her intent by expressly listing the drug classification - schedule IVA controlled substances - in Section 4, as opposed to a specific drug, was to maintain continuity in statute. REPRESENTATIVE GRAY opined that a person who offered another person an oxycodone pill should not be incarcerated for 7-11 years. He shared his belief that the scope of the bill should remain on Fentanyl specifically. He expressed his strong opposition to Section 4 in Version B. 3:12:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled that during a previous hearing on HB 66 the majority of the committee went into the chair's office. He asked whether that conversation was covered under the open meetings requirements. CHAIR VANCE did not recall. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it was the House Majority's contention that a majority of the committee could have an offline discussion about the bill and that the conversation would not be covered under the open meeting requirements. CHAIR VANCE clarified that the discussion in question was with the maker of an amendment. She said she was not an expert on the Open Meetings Act, as the legislature did not fall under its purview. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that he was referring to the open meetings requirement, which involved the legislature. 3:15:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY recalled that he had voted "yes" on both of Representative Johnson's amendments; however, he did not vote in favor of the changes included in Version B. 3:16:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his opposition to Version B, as drafted. He shared his understanding that initially, Version B was to include solely the amendments that had passed in committee. He said the additional inclusions factored into his opposition. 3:16:56 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Carpenter, C. Johnson, Allard, and Vance voted in favor of the motion to adopt Version B to HB 66. Representatives Eastman, Gray, and Groh voted against it. Therefore, Version B was adopted by a vote of 4-3. 3:17:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY moved to adopt Amendment 3 to Version B, labeled 33-GH1482\B.1, Radford, 3/21/23, which read: Page 1, line 3: Delete "relating to the computation of good  time;" Page 4, line 24, through page 5, line 10: Delete all material. Renumber the followings bill sections accordingly. Page 5, line 16, following the first occurrence of "Act,": Insert "and" Page 5, lines 16 - 17: Delete "and AS 33.20.010(a), as amended by sec. 5 of this Act," REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON objected. 3:17:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained Amendment 3 would incentivize good behavior and facilitate participation in drug treatment programs by removing the "good time" ineligibility proposed in HB 66. Ultimately, he argued, it was a cost savings measure, as offenders would spend less time in prison. REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD opined that "good time" was unjustifiable for these types of crime. 3:20:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted his skepticism regarding the use of "good time" in Alaska Statutes. Nonetheless, he expressed strong opposition to removing "good time" eligibility for an offender who had no intention of harming another person. REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER remarked, "In my mind, good behavior is to not do the crime in the first place." He shared his belief that his constituents would not want him to support reduced sentences. REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD expressed concern about showing leniency to criminals, adding "we need to be harder, stricter, and the punishment needs to fit the crime." 3:23:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON expressed his hope that harsher penalties and removal of "good time" would discourage drug dealers from coming to Alaska. He opined that the bill should be stricter. He remarked, "The death penalty wasn't available, I didn't think this was the vehicle for it, but if it were, I would have used it." He maintained his vehement opposition to the proposed amendment. REPRESENTATIVE GRAY opined that a death penalty sentence for sharing a pill was too severe. He acknowledged the drug problem in Alaska, reiterating that "good time" incentivized individuals to participate in drug rehabilitation programs. He pointed out that Amendment 3 was not lighter on crime; instead, it would leave existing law intact, such that convicted drug offenders would be eligible for "good time." He emphasized that addicts needed treatment, as opposed to sending them to prison with no hope of an early release date regardless of their behavior, which was a disincentive. REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON maintained his objection. 3:26:39 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Gray, and Groh voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 3. Representatives Allard, Carpenter, C. Johnson, and Vance voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-4. 3:27:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY moved to adopt Amendment 4 to Version B, labeled 33-GH1482\B.2, Radford, 3/21/23, which read: Page 1, line 1, following "substances;": Insert "relating to manslaughter;" Page 2, line 24, following "substances": Insert "that contains or is combined with a  schedule IA controlled substance set out in  AS 11.71.140(c)(29)" Page 2, lines 26 - 27: Delete "; in this paragraph, "ingestion" means  voluntarily or involuntarily taking a substance into  the body in any manner" Page 2, following line 27: Insert new bill sections to read:  "* Sec. 2. AS 11.41.120(a) is amended to read: (a) A person commits the crime of manslaughter if the person (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes the death of another person under circumstances not amounting to murder in the first or second degree; (2) intentionally aids another person to commit suicide; or (3) under circumstances not amounting to  murder in the second degree under AS 11.41.110(a)(6), knowingly manufactures or delivers a controlled substance in violation of AS 11.71.010 - 11.71.030 or 11.71.040(a)(1) for schedule IVA controlled substances, and a person dies as a direct result of ingestion of the controlled substance; the death is a result that does not require a culpable mental state [; IN THIS PARAGRAPH, "INGESTION" MEANS VOLUNTARILY OR INVOLUNTARILY TAKING A SUBSTANCE INTO THE BODY IN ANY MANNER].  * Sec. 3. AS 11.41.140 is amended to read: Sec. 11.41.140. Definitions [DEFINITION]. In AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.140,  (1) "ingestion" means voluntarily or  involuntarily taking a substance into the body in any  manner;  (2) "person", when referring to the victim of a crime, means a human being who has been born and was alive at the time of the criminal act. A person is "alive" if there is spontaneous respiratory or cardiac function or, when respiratory and cardiac functions are maintained by artificial means, there is spontaneous brain function."  Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 5, line 11: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 5, line 14, following "Act,": Insert "AS 11.41.120(a), as amended by sec. 2 of this Act, AS 11.41.140, as amended by sec. 3 of this Act," Page 5, line 15: Delete "sec. 2" Insert "sec. 4" Delete "sec. 3" Insert "sec. 5" Page 3, line 16: Delete "sec. 4" Insert "sec. 6" Page 3, line 17: Delete "sec. 5" Insert "sec. 7" REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON objected. 3:27:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained Amendment 4 would narrow the charge of murder in the second degree to death caused by the delivery and ingestion of Fentanyl or Fentanyl-laced narcotics specifically. He indicating that the intent was to narrow the scope of the crime match the original intent of the bill. 3:28:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON likened the proposed amendment to being killed with a shotgun or a pistol, indicating that either way, the result was death. He stated his opposition to Amendment 4. 3:28:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about page 1, lines 5-6 of Amendment 4. REPRESENTATIVE GRAY did not know the answer. REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked Mr. Skidmore to explain Amendment 4. 3:30:07 PM JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, DOL, on behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request of the governor, provided a sectional analysis of Amendment 4. 3:33:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD expressed her opposition to Amendment 4. She stated that she was tired of weakening Alaska's laws. She remarked, "We, as the state of Alaska, need to stop being used as drug mules," opining that the focus should be on making the state a better place. 3:33:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the impact of the language on page 1, lines 19-20 of Amendment 4. MR. SKIDMORE said the language in question was similar to language used elsewhere in statute. The purpose, he said, was to clarify that if Fentanyl was not present in the controlled substance, it would revert to a manslaughter charge, as opposed to murder in the second degree. REPRESENTATIVE GRAY emphasized the rarity of a manslaughter conviction in Alaska, reporting that DOL had achieved a total of three in the state's history. He reiterated that the purpose of Amendment 4 was to keep the bill focused on Alaska's Fentanyl problem and discourage drug dealers from selling Fentanyl-laced product. REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON maintained his objection. 3:36:56 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Groh, Eastman, and Gray voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 4. Representatives Allard, Carpenter, C. Johnson, and Vance voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 3-4. 3:37:30 PM CHAIR VANCE invited Mr. Skidmore to provide closing comments on the underlying bill, Version B. MR. SKIDMORE stated that the bill was designed to address the overdose problem in Alaska. He said he appreciated the committee's focus on Fentanyl; however, statewide overdose deaths were not caused by Fentanyl alone. He summarized findings on the drug oversize mortality rates from the report on Alaska drug facts and figures [included in the committee packet] conducted by the Division of Public Health, Alaska Department of Health (DOH). He indicated that the bill's drafting reflected the administration's concern about Fentanyl in addition to other substances. He encouraged the committee to pass Version B out of committee in its current form. 3:40:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment [5] to Version B, such that "schedule 1A controlled substance" on page 4, line 20, would be replaced with "Fentanyl." REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD objected for the purpose of discussion. 3:40:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained that Conceptual Amendment [5] would restore the language in Version B to reflect Representative C. Johnson's original amendment to HB 66 [adopted by the committee on 3/6/23]. 3:40:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON expressed opposition to Conceptual Amendment 5, stating "murder is murder." CHAIR VANCE explained that she had made the decision to include the entire schedule of drugs, as opposed to just Fentanyl, on page 4, line 20 over Version B, because schedule IA drugs were treated similarly in other areas of law. She characterized Fentanyl as the "drug du jour," adding that it was the committee's responsibility to consider the impacts of legislation far into the future. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that attempting to anticipate the "drug du jour" of the future went against the very nature of the legislature. He urged the committee to consider these provisions in a thoughtful and deliberate manner rather than delegating that authority elsewhere. 3:44:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY reiterated that the provision in question was addressing the delivery of a schedule IA controlled substances. He explained that without Conceptual Amendment [5], a person could be sentenced to 11 years for sharing an Oxycodone pill with a family member, for example. REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON maintained her objection. 3:44:48 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Groh, Gray, and Eastman voted in favor of the motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment [5]. Representatives Allard, Carpenter, C Johnson, and Vance voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 3-4. 3:45:27 PM CHAIR VANCE invited closing remarks from members of the committee. REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON declared a conflict of interest, explaining that his nephew overdosed on a combination of drugs, including fentanyl. REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared how her immediate family had been impacted by drug use, an overdose death, and prison time. She expressed adamant support for the passage of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER relayed that his brother in-laws had died from an overdose, opining that there was not a harsh enough penalty for people who bring drugs into Alaska to profit from other people's demise. He said there was compassion to be had for addicts; however, he believed that the penalties for bringing drugs into Alaska should be "as severe as humanly possible." 3:49:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY described the bill as being "dumb on crime" instead of hard on crime. He recalled that the bill had been presented to him as a "Fentanyl bill;" Instead, he said, the bill would elevate the charge of manslaughter to murder in the second degree, which would have affected three people in the past 16 years. The second half of the bill would remove "good time" eligibility for drug offenses, which was an excellent tool for incentivizing people to become better people, he said. He characterized the bill as a bad faith effort by DOL to lock up addicts and deny them the treatment they need. He characterized the changes in Version B as broad, dangerous, and expensive, adding that it would give too much power to DOL. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the bill sought to do away with people's personal freedoms and liberties under the guise of being tough on drug crimes. He shared his belief that the bill was effectually "bastardizing the dictionary" in its expansion of [second degree] murder. He discussed the politization of law enforcement, opining that the bill would open the door for similar conduct. 3:55:39 PM CHAIR VANCE emphasized the dangerous nature of drugs, pointing out that hundreds of Alaskans had died. She expressed her hope that the bill would motivate people to reconsider their actions by providing stiffer penalties. She remarked, "If someone dies because of your actions that you knowingly participated in there is potential for you to be charged with second degree murder." 3:57:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to report CSHB 66, Version 33- GH1482\B, Radford, 3/20/23, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. 3:58:13 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Allard, Carpenter, C. Johnson, and Vance voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Eastman, Gray, and Groh voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 66(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.