SB 154- JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS  9:08:34 AM CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 154 to be up for consideration. Ms. HEATHER BRAKES, staff to Senator Therriault, introduced SB 154. SB 154 would improve the state's ability to hold juvenile offenders accountable. It would also increase efficiency of the juvenile justice system by allowing telephonic hearings in some court proceedings. SB 154 addresses a loophole and places jurisdiction for an adult discovered to have committed a crime while under the age of 18. 9:11:22 AM MS. PATTY WARE, director, Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections (DOC), voiced support of SB 154. She advised the committee of two cases in Kenai involving serious charges relating to sexual abuse of a minor. The Alaska Superior Court, in both cases, ruled there was no legal jurisdiction either for the juvenile justice system or the criminal court system. The first instance was of a 19 year old who committed a sexual assault when he was 17. 9:13:05 AM The second situation was of a 20 year old alleged to have committed crimes when he was 15 and 17. The Alaska Superior Court dismissed both cases due to lack of jurisdiction. She read a quote from the Alaska Superior Court ruling on the second case: The court recognizes the state's concern that this interpretation can allow juvenile criminal activity to go unpunished if the crime did not come to light until thth after the juvenile's 18 or 19 birthday. This result is not of the court's making. For whatever reason, the Legislature has mandated that juvenile jurisdiction in all cases comes to an end at the time of the th juvenile's 19 birthday unless the juvenile consents to a longer period. The resolution of this problem rests not with the court, but with the Legislature. 9:14:47 AM SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked whether either order was appealed. MS. WARE admitted she was not sure. Section 1 of SB 154 adds a new subsection to the delinquency statutes establishing legal jurisdiction. Section 2 establishes applicability of the rest of the delinquency laws to this particular class of minor, which are persons over the age of 18 by the time they come before the court. 9:17:10 AM MR. TONY NEWMAN, program officer, Division of Juvenile Justice demonstrated a visual presentation on a flip chart that related to juvenile and adult offense jurisdictions. There are a couple of instances where juvenile offenders are managed in the adult system, such as murder and armed robbery. Another way a juvenile can be forwarded into the adult criminal system is through AS 47.12.100 where the state must demonstrate the juvenile is not amenable to treatment. Dual sentencing provisions apply to serious offenses such as repeated felony crimes where the district attorney can seek both a juvenile and adult sentence for a minor. 9:20:35 AM SB 154 addresses situations where crimes are not discovered until after the person has turned 18 and will give the state the opportunity for restitution. 9:24:03 AM SENATOR FRENCH asked whether the first move would be to ask for the discretionary waiver into adult court. MR. NEWMAN said it would depend on the offense and the offender. 9:25:57 AM SENATOR FRENCH asked whether subsequent hearings would be in adult court. MR. NEWMAN answered yes. SENATOR FRENCH asked whether SB 154 would grant the state jurisdiction of an adult in juvenile court. 9:27:34 AM MR. NEWMAN responded yes. 9:28:51 AM MS. WARE continued the second half of SB 154 allows the juvenile justice system to use state resources. Section 9 proposes a change to the delinquency rules. It specifies specific hearings where a juvenile has a right to be physically present. It allows for telephonic presence. Currently the DOC spends over $200,000 a year transporting young people to court. 9:32:13 AM SENATOR FRENCH asked where the evidentiary hearing would fit into the scheme. MS. WARE said those types of issues happen fairly infrequently. She emphasized they would not request a telephonic hearing for serious issues. 9:34:57 AM MS. ANNE CARPENETI, Department of Law (DOL), commented a motion hearing is not specified in SB 154 as a proceeding where the juvenile has to be present. Paragraph 3 of the rule provides that appearance by television is not allowed under any circumstances in a proceeding where sworn testimony is presented. A motion hearing would be supported by testimonial evidence. She said that might need to be added into Paragraph 1. SENATOR FRENCH moved Amendment 1. Page 7, line 6; after the word "television" add the words "or telephone." Hearing no objections, the motion carried. 9:36:52 AM SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT asked Ms. Ware the number of cases SB 154 would apply. MS. WARE answered she would get back to the committee with the information. 9:38:56 AM MS. LINDA WILSON, deputy director, Alaska Public Defender Agency, testified she is quite familiar with this area of law and offered to answer questions. She guessed there would be a large number of cases that would fall under SB 154. 9:43:12 AM MS. WILSON expressed concern over telephonic participation of a juvenile. Juveniles often don't understand what is happening to them. She said they need their attorney present and they have a right to have them present during hearings because the hearings are critical and address liberty. She disputed the zero fiscal notes saying the cost will shift to another agency, such as public defender travel costs. The attorney, the client, and the judge being in the same room create a far greater impact. 9:45:12 AM SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Wilson whether she would travel to be next to her client, no matter how brief the hearing was anticipated to be. MS. WILSON responded not in every case. Allowing the juvenile the right to waive presence at a hearing is appropriate. Allowing the Department of Law the right to exclude the juvenile is worrisome. SENATOR FRENCH asked whether most contested hearings involve sworn testimony. MS. WILSON answered sometimes detention review hearings can be contested but not necessarily evidentiary. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked committee members to consider zeroing out the indeterminate fiscal note. He asked Ms. Ware to comment. 9:48:18 AM MS. WARE remarked the proposed changes are addressing the types of hearings where a public defender would not travel. CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether there existed an electronic method where the juvenile and the attorney could communicate on a secure line. MS. WARE said due to the size and remoteness of Alaska, many times the primary communication is telephonic. SENATOR THERRIAULT offered the hearing could be recessed so the juvenile and attorney could communicate through another phone line. 9:50:39 AM MS. WILSON advised there is often not another phone line. Many times juveniles won't interrupt a proceeding to ask a question. CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether the attorneys properly communicate with the client to make sure they understand that they can ask questions. MS. WILSON stated sometimes they don't remember. She maintained it is important for the attorney to be physically present in order to initiate breaks to explain things and answer questions. 9:52:36 AM SENATOR FRENCH asked Ms. Wilson the most substantive type hearing where she felt SB 154 would prevent attendance by the juvenile. MS. WILSON divulged it would be the detention review hearings, which is similar to a bail hearing. MS. WARE agreed every court hearing is important. SB 154 is an attempt to propose an option for the judge to consider the cost/benefit analysis. 9:56:09 AM MS. CARPENETI added the rule provides the judge is the entity who decides whether the person needs to be there. The DOL and the DOC are not excluding the child; they are asking the judge to decide whether it is essential for the child to be physically present. SENATOR FRENCH articulated the closer the call, the more likely the judge would make sure all parties are in the same room. MS. WARE agreed. 9:57:31 AM CHAIR SEEKINS closed public testimony. SENATOR THERRIAULT moved the Senate Standing Judiciary Committee draft a zero fiscal note for the office of public defender. Hearing no objections, the motion carried. SENATOR THERRIAULT moved CSSB 154(JUD) from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). There being no objection, the motion carried.