Senate Judiciary, 4/8/26, 1:45pm

Let's call this meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee to order.

It is 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday,

April 8th, 20... It's 2.30 p.m.

I'm such a creature of habit. Uh 2:30 on Wednesday, April 8th, before we begin, I want to thank Julianna Singh, the senator's uh secretary, who makes sure we have a transcript of our meetings, and Renzo Moises from the general L.A.O. who makes sure we have sound. I want to remember committee members and those in the room, especially the chair to silence your cell phones. Present day we have Senator Stevens, my vice-chair, Senator Kiel and myself, Senator Klayman. We have a quorum to conduct the business, we also have Senator Tillman.

And we still have a quorum to conduct business. The first and only item on our agenda today is House Bill 239, criminally negligent homicide failure to assist, sponsored by Representative Copp. This is the first hearing of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here to present the bill is Representative Copp, who I know is taking a quick break from House floor and the staff,

Gary Zepp.

Representative Copp and Mr. Zepp, you're already for put yourselves on the record and you may begin your presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

My name is Chuck Kopp. I'm the representative for House District 10 in Anchorage, Alaska.

I'm accompanied by my team member,

Mr.

Gary Zepp.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for hearing this bill.

This is a public safety and accountability measure focused on one of the most disturbing crimes we see on Alaska's roads,

fatal hit-and-run cases where a life is taken and a driver flees the scene instead of stopping and helping.

Across my district alone,

in Anchorage,

we have seen dozens of hit-and-run fatalities over the past decade, and in fact about a quarter of these pedestrian deaths involves a driver who leaves the scene rather than rendering aid.

And as we know, Mr.

Chairman, those aren't just statistics, these are family members,

these are sons,

daughters,

parents, people we know, our neighbours,

and their final moments were not just marked by tragedy, but by abandonment. Under current law, Mr.

Chairman, when a driver's criminal negligence causes a death,

that offence typically receives a class B felony charge.

Even when the driver leaves the victim behind,

sentences can be constrained by low presumptive ranges,

plea negotiations,

or concurrent sentencing,

and in some cases defendants we see and will hear under testimony receive only a matter of months for conduct that resulted in the death of someone and then the driver decided to flee the scene after causing that death.

We believe, Mr.

Chairman,

that this conduct or this response of the law doesn't adequately reflect the gravity of the offense and what is happening here,

and it really doesn't match our community expectations for accountability in these situations.

So House Bill 239 addresses this in a straightforward way.

It creates a higher level of offense,

an aggravated form of criminally negligent homicide.

when a person causes a death with a motor vehicle.

and knowingly fails to stop and render aid. So, it only increases the offense if two things happen: One,

you have to be driving with criminal negligence to begin with and cause a death, and secondly, you have to knowingly leave the scene in failure to do the duty the law already requires,

which is to render aid. So under this bill the conduct is elevated if it meets the conduct I just described. It elevates it from a B felony

to an A felony.

What does that mean? It means a first offender would no longer be looking at a one to three year sentence but a four to seven year sentence.

The bill also requires some consecutive time when both the homicide and the failure to render aid offenses are present.

ensuring the sentence reflects both the loss of life and the decision to abandon the person in the roadway.

It does not create new criminal conduct,

and I want to emphasize this bill does not create new criminal conduct.

It simply recognizes that when a driver's negligence takes a life and they choose to leave the scene rather than stay alive,

summoning help that compounds the harm and we believe this legislation aligns the penalty with the seriousness of the offense and it stays within our constitutional sentencing framework, restores public confidence that these cases are treated with the gravity we believe they deserve. So Mr. Chairman we believe this bill is about accountability, deterrence

and basic human responsibility when someone is dying in the road,

the law should demand that the driver stop and help and impose meaningful consequences when they do not.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. It if it's okay with you, I'd now like to allow my team member to walk us through a short slide show or whatever your wish is.

We're happy unless there are specific questions for you, Representative Cobb. I know you're busy on the floor today, so what I actually— I'll see if members of the committee have questions for you specifically now, and if not, then you can stay as long as you want, but we'll let your staff present after we have any questions for you. Any questions for Representative Senator Stevens?

for Representative—

Senator Stevens?

Just a quick question, and I appreciate having a chance to chat with you about this earlier a few days ago.

I saw a news report where a Good Samaritan had helped a lady that was injured and he wound up being sued because of that.

And so I would think that would be a detriment to being a Good Samaritan if you're going to get sued.

Would you explain to me that it's not the case in law in Alaska that a Good Samaritan would not be sued in our state? Is that true?

Yes,

and through the chair,

President Stevens.

Alaska does have great Good Samaritan protections.

We can never stop somebody from attempting or trying to sue,

but we have built in to it's one of the defenses that we're not unique as a state, but our Good Samaritan protection is very strong where if you're acting in good faith to mitigate harm to someone that you are basically have a defense of good faith if what you did actually

caused any further damage to a person's situation as long as you were acting in good faith. And I know we have the Department of Law and the court system that could chime in on that, but thank you for that question.

That makes sense. Thank you.

Yep.

Yeah.

Any other questions for Representative Copp? Senator Tobin, and Senator Tobin arrived at 2.34, which I did not note at the time. Senator Tobin.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I'm just curious about the definition of motor vehicle.

And I apologize that I haven't looked to see if.

In this title or in this section of statute,

there's already a definition, but would this include motorbikes or any type of non four-wheel drive vehicle or perhaps even four-wheel drive like an ATV?

Through the chair, Representative Tobin, yes,

a motor vehicle is defined in Title 28. What that means, I'm not sure exactly what all vehicles are in there, but it has a very specific definition.

Brief follow-up.

Senator Tobin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just know that in some of the areas in Alaska that folks are driving all-terrain vehicles and some of these 4x4s, and it may not necessarily be that they're in a...

a typical vehicle that we see in our urban areas but they are in ones that can go pretty fast and do some very terrible things and folks sometimes drive them a bit recklessly and so I'd be curious about that definition.

Yes, and through the chair,

Senator Tobin, I can confirm to you that it does include ATVs. I've personally arrested DUIs off four-wheelers in my law enforcement career,

and it meets the statutory definition of a motor vehicle for that purpose.

Yeah.

What about a motorized fishing vessel or motorized boat?

Yes, Chair Clayman,

that is a motor vehicle for purposes of the law, and as a fact it's one of the reasons why boats are registered by Alaska Division of Motor Vehicles.

Other questions for Representative Kopp?

I don't see any we recognize we may be more entertaining than the house floor but but you're welcome to stay as long as you want or go back to the floor.

I want to thank the committee for hearing this bill.

They are— they refused to go into recess for little old me, so if it pleases the committee, I would like to go back and not miss any votes.

That's fine. If we have other questions that either Department of Law can answer or your staff can answer, we will let you answer those the next time we hear the bill.

Thank you. You're in good hands with Mr. Zep. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Thank you.

Mr. Zapp.

Sure. For the record, my name is Gary Zep, staff to Representative Chuck Kopp. Mr. Chairman, if it pleases you, I could either start with a sectional or dive right into the PowerPoint.

Does anybody want to hear the sectional? I don't see anyone wants to hear the sectional. You can go straight to the PowerPoint.

Okay.

Before you today is H.B. 239, criminally negligent homicide and failure to render assistance,

which increases the current presumptive criminal sentencing range when convicted of both offenses.

The current law does not fulfill the victim's rights of accountability and expectation of justice for losing a loved one. And the fact is that fatal pedestrian hit-and-run crashes have been on the rise over the last several years, both in Alaska and nationally.

This offense leaves behind devastated families,

friends who have suffered the loss of a loved one in a brutal fashion.

Why introduce the bill?

Plea constraints,

low presumptive sentence ranges,

sentence reductions for parole and for good time,

and concurrent sentencing for the separate Class B felony crimes of criminal negligent homicide and failure to render aid,

they pull sentences down.

Even when the driver flees and or conceals evidence. Because these variables are substantially reducing sentencing ranges, we believe the current presumptive sentencing ranges need to be elevated.

And Mr. Chairman and committee members, just for the record, nothing in House Bill 239 changes the current law if you stop and render assistance.

What does HB 239 do?

It elevates the crime of criminally negligent homicide from a Class B felony to a Class A felony when the person also fails to render aid and leaves the scene of the crash.

It increases the current presumptive sentence for a first time offender from 1 to 3 years to 4 to 7 years.

And if convicted of both criminally negligent homicide and failure to render assistance,

it requires some additional time to be imposed for the failure to render assistance. And the bill still allows for judicial discretion on the amount of time to be served consecutively.

And this slide illustrates a comparison between the current law and House Bill 239.

And starting at the top of the graph,

shown in turquoise, this reflects the current law regarding criminally negligent homicide,

which again is a class B felony and a presumptive sentence range is one to three years for first-time offenders.

The second bar,

also shown in turquoise,

shows the current law regarding failure to render assistance,

which is a class B felony and the presumptive sentence range is no more than ten years and may run consecutively or concurrently.

The third bar, shown in green, reveals the impacts of House Bill 239. It elevates the crime of criminally negligent homicide from a class B felony to a class A felony when the person also fails to render aid and leaves the scene of the accident.

The presumptive sentence would be four to seven years.

The fourth bar,

also shown in green,

demonstrates the impact again of failure to render assistance under House Bill two thirty nine.

It remains a class B felony if charged separately with a presumptive sentencing range of zero to ten years for the first time offenders. However, if convicted of both criminally negligent homicide and failure to render assistance,

it requires some additional consecutive time be imposed.

for the failure to render assistance. And again, it provides judicial discretion on the amount of time to be served consecutively.

Headlines in Alaska continually report fatal pedestrian hit and run crashes, and alarmingly low prison sentences for running over a person, not stopping to render assistance and leaving them to die in the road.

And note, we are using the term pedestrian to encompass pedestrians,

cyclists, skateboarders, etc.

Since 2015,

Anchorage has recorded 94 vehicle-pedestrian-bicycle fatalities, an average of almost 10 per year.

Since 2021,

there have been 41 vehicle-pedestrian-bicycle fatalities.

In your packets...

We have provided seventy three pages of Alaska news stories, trooper reports, municipality of Anchorage traffic reports of fatal pedestrian hit and run crashes in Alaska.

And in twenty twenty four Anchorage had a record fifteen fatal pedestrian hit and run crashes.

There is no shortage of these tragic stories, which leaves families

And friends with feelings of profound grief,

rage and a lifetime of trauma because their loved one was struck by a vehicle,

left in the street to die and the perpetrator chose to flee the scene.

Far too often,

if and when a perpetrator is caught,

we read where the plea constraints,

low presumptive sentencing,

sentence reductions for parole and for good time.

And concurrent sentencing reduces the actual sentence handed down by the courts.

This does not reflect the gravity of causing a death with a vehicle and by abandoning the victim.

H.B. 239 seeks to increase the criminal presumptive sentencing ranges to offset these variables.

The case of Chase Bowersox illustrates exactly why we believe increasing the presumptive sentencing ranges is needed.

The sentence was light because of the charge that the perpetrator pled to,

to the low presumptive sentence ranges,

and the sentence reduction for parole and for good time and concurrent sentencing that pulled the sentence down.

Later in today's hearing you will hear testimony from two families who have suffered the loss of a loved one on a fatal hit and run crash.

You will hear from Chase's mom and dad and Ms. Stauffer whose son was killed in a fatal hit and run crash and that perpetrator is still at large.

If we could could take a pause. I'm just

Yes.

watching the clock. I know we've got invited testimony. Why don't we actually take a pause and bring up the invited testimony now so they don't have to come back. And then if we and then you can get done done at three but I'd rather get the invited testimony going. Are they on line or are they in person?

Mister chairman, they should be on a team's uh appointment.

Okay, looks like we've got um so we're gonna open up invited testimony. You have got Kelly and Jeff Trent.

Are you both testifying or only one of you testifying?

I'm going to be speaking.

Okay.

Please identify yourself for the record. I'd ask to try to keep your time, your testimony, to about three minutes.

Good afternoon. My name is Kelly Trent.

I'll be sharing with you the loss of my son,

Chase Bowersen.

On January 2nd, 2021,

the unimaginable happened to myself and my family.

It was a Saturday and I remember hearing about a body being found from a hit and run on the Glen Highway throughout that day.

I texted Chase and hadn't heard back,

but he had told me he would be going to an auto auction in Wasilla.

Wasilla that day,

so I assumed he was busy with that.

When the police came to my door and told my husband and me what had happened,

I literally couldn't believe what they were saying.

I asked one of the officers if this was real or a nightmare.

It was both those things.

From the first court date to the last, my husband and I attended them all.

The court dates were approximately every four to eight weeks for over four years.

We never missed one.

We were focused on justice for Chase.

To our dismay, the man that killed our son was released on ankle monitor almost immediately after he killed him.

The disappointment we felt in our judicial system began slowly but quickly became undeniable.

Over the course of waiting for justice,

we became very aware of the plague of hit and run deaths that were occurring in our community.

It was unbelievable how many people were being hit by cars and left to die.

We thought surely that Chase's case would set an example of justice and that future cases would follow suit,

that justice would come through our courts.

That did not happen, though.

Chase's case began with the killer being charged with murder one,

manslaughter and felony failure to render aid.

About a year before we were to go to trial,

the DA decided.

To go for manslaughter only.

Then the day before the trial was to start,

the DA let us know that they were going to offer a plea deal to the defendant of criminally negligent homicide and leaving the scene,

with him only receiving a two and a half year sentence and with good time only having to serve eight months. Since he had done six months already in 2022 for violating conditions,

he only had to serve a few weeks in jail after sentencing.

Amazing.

I have never felt so disheartened by my home state of Alaska.

The sentence that Chase's killer received is not justice.

It is a sentence that tells our community that human life doesn't mean what it should to the state of Alaska.

That is not the Alaska I want to live in.

My son Chase was a caring,

hardworking young man.

He owned his own home and was planning on building a cabin on his land in Homer.

He had just turned 26 two weeks prior to being killed.

He was a contributing member of Alaska and gave back to our community.

After we lost Chase,

we found out so much more about his giving spirit.

He made donations to shelters for women and children.

He gave shoes he had in his vehicle to unhoused people many times.

times.

We found out he saved an elder's life a few years before he was killed,

allowing this Alaskan elder more years with his family.

His loss has had a rippling effect not only on my family and his friends,

but to Alaska and the world.

I have thought many times about how I would have felt if his killer would have stopped after he hit him with his car.

They knew each other.

We knew his killer.

He made the choice to leave him alongside the cold dark

Mark Glen Highway after hitting him.

If he had stopped, called for help, and been with Chase until help arrived,

I wouldn't even be addressing you all.

But his killer made the choice to leave him to die along the road,

and he drove another 20 minutes to his home and went to bed.

Chase's body wasn't found for approximately four hours.

Four long, cold hours,

alone and discarded by another human.

that thought it was okay to do that.

That part of Chase's death will haunt me forever.

No person deserves that.

It is difficult to think about how I would have felt if he had made the choice to stop and had at the very least called the police and maybe even comforted him.

I do know that I would not think of his killer as the monster that I believe he is.

I would have believed that he maybe had a shred of decency if he had.

had stopped,

but that didn't happen and that is happening to far too many victims and their families in our community.

House Bill 239 will set a standard that Alaska needs to have in place.

People need to know that if they do hit someone with their car,

they must stay,

call for help,

and render aid.

If they don't do this, the consequences will outweigh any other option.

What is in place now does not ensure that.

Human life is not something that a person can choose to throw away because of the selfish choice of fleeing and leaving them to die.

Please stand with our family in support of House Bill 239 so that no one in Alaska will experience this gross injustice of life being ripped away and the consequences not being adequate.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Making this bill law will demonstrate to Alaskans that have lost faith in the system that there are changes being made.

Thank you.

Thank you very much

Mr.

Zepp, I see

Police Chief Case is online for invited testimony. Is there anyone else for invited testimony besides Chief Case?

Gary, is that for the record?

No,

Mr.

Chairman.

All right.

So next in for invited testimonies, Anchorage Police Chief Sean Case.

Chief Case, do you want to identify yourself for the record and I'd ask that you keep your testimony to three minutes.

Vice Chair Keel and members of the committee,

thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of House Bill 239.

My name is Sean Case and I serve as the Chief of Police for the Anchorage Police Department and the President of the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police.

I've seen firsthand the devastating consequences of negligent driving and the profound harm caused when drivers flee the scene of a fatal crash.

House Bill 239 is critical and it's a balanced update to the Alaska criminal code.

It ensures that a person that causes a death through criminal negligence and then knowingly fails to stop and render reasonable assistance face penalties that reflect the seriousness of that choice.

This change recognizes that fleeing the scene is not a mere procedural violation.

It is a deliberate act that compounds the harm,

denies victims potentially life-saving assistance,

and obstructs justice.

From a law enforcement perspective,

this legislation accomplishes several important goals.

First,

it deters hit-and-run behavior by establishing stronger penalties for those who abandon their duty to assist.

It promotes accountability by aligning sentencing with the moral and social gravity of leaving a person to die.

Support victims and families by affirming their rights.

That Alaskan values human life and expect drivers to act reasonably,

even in moments of panic or fear.

In Anchorage and across Alaska,

we have seen too many cases where victims might have survived if the driver had stopped to call for help or render aid.

Each of those cases leaves a lasting mark on our officers,

our community,

and the families who must live with the loss.

HB 239 sends a clear message.

Leaving the scene of a fatal crash is not just irresponsible,

it is criminally inexcusable.

On behalf of the Anchorage Police Department and the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police,

I urge the committee to advance House Bill 239.

It is a thoughtful,

necessary measure that will help law enforcement,

prosecutors,

and the courts hold offenders accountable while promoting safer roads and stronger communities.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for,

we do have questions.

Senator Stevens.

Well, thank you, Chief.

I appreciate hearing from you and you've had obviously a lot of experience in these issues.

But I notice as I look at this House Bill 239, currently it's 10 years for failure to render assistance,

10 years currently.

And under the new bill, it would still stay the same up to 10 years.

Would you give any comments?

enough? I mean,

is that in your experience?

I'm not sure if you can even answer it or care to answer it, but it doesn't— it seems like there should be additional years for failure to give assistance.

Through the Chair,

Senator Stevens,

I think the benefit here is that instead of having

these two sentences overlap on each other, this bill now allows them to run back-to-back or consecutive. So you're going to be, instead of serving both sentences at the same time, you're serving one, and then you're going to the next one, so you're actually going to get some additional time.

So I definitely hear what you're saying, but I think that this will have a lasting impact by changing it the way in which the sentences are served.

Well, thank you. I've got to continue. Would you mind?

Stevens? Absolutely,

So

I've run out of weeks to ask questions. You're going to take advantage of everything.

There

was an instance in Kodiak where I live where something similar happened. A truck hit, there was a tidal wave and people were coming up the hillside and a truck hit a lady who was killed and the truck ran off and the case was eventually dismissed.

I'm not sure why,

but I noticed on Kelly and Jeff Trent,

they said that there was a plea deal.

So in your experience.

You know, is there leniency here?

Do we find that people are let off on plea deals and cases dismissed when I don't know if you can even answer that, but it does seem to me that the instances that I know they've not been followed through. Maybe the court couldn't prove it. Maybe the prosecutor couldn't prove that the person was actually the one who was supposed to be there. But any reflections you have on that issue?

This is Sheriff Senator Stevens.

We certainly

like the plea deals that occur not only in this type of crimes but but in other ones as well and you know through the process

You know, the expectation is that the other municipal local prosecutors, the district attorney's office,

you know, they weigh the evidence and the ability of whether they can get these cases through the prosecution.

And when they see challenges or, you know, particular things that come from the case that are going to cause challenges or risk of not getting conviction,

you know, they use the plea process to try to get some sort of punishment for.

the offender.

But yeah, we do typically see a pretty substantial amount of plea deals that happen.

That's not unique to Alaska. That's pretty consistent throughout the country.

I understand.

All right, understand. Thank you, Chief.

Senator Tobin.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and thank you, Chief Case.

I do appreciate your perspective and insight.

And so I'm going to ask you a question that I am struggling with.

You talked in your testimony about promoting responsibility and holding people accountable,

and yet the research is pretty conclusive that longer prison sentences do not deter crime. They don't actually deter folks from some of these actions, particularly for first-time offenders.

It's also difficult for me to understand how a longer prison sentence could potentially stop hit and run activities and make our community safer.

So can you expound upon that correlation or help me understand what I'm missing as I'm not entirely certain I can see the relationship between a longer prison sentence and being able to end hit and runs in Alaska?

Chairman Tillman yeah I appreciate that question and I agree with you in many situations when we look at general or specific deterrence there is there's a lot of evidence to support exactly what you're saying

However, there's also a lot of evidence specifically as it relates to operating a vehicle under the influence that's a little bit different driving under the influence and the resulting collisions we all know is 100% preventable. There are many options that people do or take prior to even going out and making decisions to go to a bar, let's say, and drink to ensure they have designated drivers or they...

They take numbers or cabs or whatever form of transportation so that they can ensure that they're not going to make a poor choice later on.

And when we have risks of higher penalties or guaranteed prosecution or prison sentences,

that weighs into very conscious decisions.

that are made with all your faculties in order prior to making decisions like going out and drinking and then driving.

And so specifically for this particular crime,

the deterrent effect will have a difference and will impact it and there's certainly data to show that.

So that's one area where this increased accountability I would think would be impacted by changing the code.

We follow?

Follow-up, Senator Tobin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Chief Case,

I appreciate that insight.

I will note that none of the fiscal notes indicate a advertising campaign or a way to communicate to the public about these increased penalties.

And so, again,

it's difficult for me to understand that relationship between the increase in penalty and the actions of an individual when there is nothing to showcase that they won't.

understand that this is a consequence of a choice they may make. That again, I agree with you is 100% preventable when it comes to operating a vehicle in a criminally negligent manner.

Senator Keel.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know we'll run a few minutes late today.

I appreciate it. Thanks for allowing me the leeway.

Chief Case,

what you said about guaranteed prosecutions and decisions people make in advance with all their faculties rings very true to me.

But the bill in front of us has to do with after there's been a criminally negligent accident or incident and somebody then leaving the scene.

And I guess I'm a little unclear as to how going from up to 10 years.

for failure to render assistance when somebody's hurt or killed, um to know more than that is the kind of deterrent that's gonna change somebody's mind when they when the the terrible thing has happened and and someone's been injured.

See

Can you help me with that?

Through the chair, yeah,

through the chair, Senator O'Keefe.

So, and I'll kind of combine a little bit of my answer to address Senator Tobin as well in terms of kind of education and knowledge of the public. Currently,

we live in a world where there's not a physical note to educate the public and put information out.

We all consume our information through many, many different forms of social media,

and that's one way of getting information out.

to the public and so you know the debate on how many years it's going to take to really influence decision making prior to making poor choices in what that magic number is we can certainly debate that but I can tell you just from recent experience in Anchorage with changes in recent laws and increasing prosecution we've seen it have an impact on crimes that are

lower level that you know things like retail theft and theft across Anchorage and when you're talking about something again as I mentioned before in my previous answers operating under the influence of an alcoholic beverage there is a significant not only personal decision making that this will impact but there's also social pressure that we place

on people that are going to make the decision to get in a vehicle and drive and we know that social pressure also plays a role and that we know that when we change the laws like that we're not just impacting the person making the decision to drive but their friends and family that are around them to also help them make their appropriate right decisions and I think having us focus as a state in saying that this is important to us and that the lives of the people

another loss of hidden runs which we've seen a devastating amount over the last couple of years.

I think as Alaskans what we're going to see is we're going to put a pretty large emphasis on making sure that this message gets out and people stop making these decisions.

Senator Kiel.

Senator Keogh.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, certainly, there's no question that it's a change that has to be made, and everybody learns

the rules of the road, in various ways,

you know, certainly I always learned that hit and run is a serious crime.

It's absolutely inexcusable.

And I guess that the issue I have, though,

is in terms of the tragedy that befell the folks who testified,

it sounds to me like, obviously, the first thing that happened was the person who drove with criminal negligence or worse

and hit the young man.

But after that, the charge was manslaughter,

which is significantly more serious than criminally negligent homicide.

And somewhere,

somebody made a decision not to prosecute as manslaughter.

So I don't know that that's something we can write in or out of the law.

The question then for the bill sponsor—

But you only get Chief Case right now because

Oh alright.

we're going to finish with Chief Case and then we're going to adjourn for the day.

Oh.

The bill sponsor's off till our next

meeting. I was leading up to a question to him.

This is only chief case because we're over time.

Alright. Well um then I'll hold off Mr Chairman unless you want the punchline now and we'll uh get the answer later.

No, I I I have I have a

punchline.

Is a disrespectful term you know what mr.

Chairman that was not okay.

I sorry the end of the question

All right. Thank you very much, Senator Keel.

So Chief Case.

We're talking about cases in which you have criminally negligent hot driving or reckless driving within the criminal code and we are talking about a bill that increases the penalty for a person who both does the crime while driving and fails to stop.

But let's look at cases which I know you've seen where there is no negligent driving. Somebody

Is driving in the speed limit, there's not a drop of alcohol anywhere in sight,

driving safely, everything is going going correctly. Somebody steps out unexpectedly

From a driving safety standpoint, there's absolutely no negligence, but somebody just got run over and injured and the driver does not stop and drives down the road and the person is discovered consistent with what we heard from Ms.

Trent.

Four hours later, they find the person in the medics find them dead and they say, you know, if we'd been able to call the paramedics right away,

this would.

would person will be living today,

sh should we be treating the person who fails to stop that was driving in a criminal way differently than the person who fails to stop and was driving the same in a legal way but nevertheless didn't stop in both instances we have a death. Why why should we distinguish the criminal driving from the well behaved driving, but still the failure to stop?

Thank you for the question,

Mr.

Chair. You're not going to get an argument from me. I do think that, you know, from the devastating legislation that I've seen here throughout my career,

that decision not to stop and render aid when you've struck a human being and to leave them,

to knowingly leave them on the roadway and drive away,

whether your driving behavior was criminal prior to that or not, I think both

require the legislation that this bill could cover. I know it doesn't, but I think that's what you're getting at. You're not going to get an argument from me.

I mean but in the way the current bill is structured,

if we want to have a higher penalty for somebody who fails to stop, this only applies when the driving itself.

met criminal standards for liability and we wouldn't be making any changes for the circumstance where somebody is driving and for reasons we can't explain drives away and as a result a person dies.

And I gu I guess I'm wondering why we are tying those two things together, because we certainly have criminal statistics to punish on the criminal side, but the current title twenty eight legislate current laws on title twenty eight don't

The duty to stop applies whether you've driven badly or not.

And I guess I'm wondering,

should we be thinking about increasing the penalty in Title 28 for failure to stop regardless of the driving behavior and let the criminal code figure out what happens when you're driving in a way that leads to criminal liability,

which would be different than the duty to stop?

That that's hopefully a question even though I didn't exactly end it with a question mark

Mr. Chair, was that a question mostly for me,

or—

It's for you.

Yes.

No,

more

it's

so?

Yes, no,

it's all for you, Chief Case.

I mean, I guess.

My opinion is that it's a little bit more of a question for the bill sponsor and how we work that.

I guess I'm not understanding your question fully.

Well, I mean, the question is from a police enforcement standard,

is it better for you to be able to say to any driver, regardless of whether they were driving in a criminal way or driving in a

perfectly legal way, to be able to say to them,

I don't care about the circumstances.

If you hit somebody,

you better stop, because by stopping, you may save lives and you need to stop and stop thinking about yourself,

start thinking about the person that you just hit.

I'm asking from a law enforcement perspective,

is it better to be able to say to drivers,

if you hit somebody,

I don't care how bad or good you are driving,

you had better stop

or you face criminal consequences for not stopping.

Does that help you as a law enforcement

Absolutely.

officer?

Yes, absolutely.

Yes, absolutely.

Okay.

All right. Well,

all these questions have run well past time.

Any other questions for Chief Case?

Hearing and seeing none,

we are going to adjourn for the day.

If anyone is considering an amendment to House Bill 239,

Criminally Negligent Homicide Failure to Assist,

sponsored by Representative Kopp,

or House Bill 101,

Crimes Against Minors Age of Consent to 18,

sponsored by Representative Gray,

please let our office know and submit them electronically by next Wednesday,

April 15th at 5 p.m.

And in terms of our next meeting,

I will just note

On the floor today, I have an excused absence for Thursday and Friday.

I still don't know where I will be on Thursday and Friday, so I'm not canceling the meeting Friday yet.

We may be meeting on Friday.

We may not be meeting on Friday.

I don't know whether I'm taking advantage of my or not advantage,

but I'm not sure if I will have to leave for this excused absence or not.

So we're going to adjourn for the day. The time is now 3.11 p.m. Thank you very much.