FINAL BILL REPORT

SHB 1065

PARTIAL VETO

                                  C 332 L 89

BYHouse Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Representatives Jones, Hargrove, Patrick, Walker, S. Wilson, Haugen, Basich, Brough, Todd, Ferguson, Holland, Crane, Cole, Rayburn, Jesernig, Rector, Heavey, Pruitt, Leonard, Kremen, Winsley, P. King, Bowman, Moyer, Silver, Cantwell, D. Sommers, Wineberry, H. Myers, G. Fisher, K. Wilson, Morris, Miller, Wolfe, Youngsman, Van Luven, McLean, Nealey, Tate, May, Schoon, Brumsickle, Doty, Phillips, Betrozoff and Anderson)

Changing provisions relating to sex crimes.

House Committe on Judiciary

Rereferred House Committee on Appropriations

Senate Committee on Law & Justice

SYNOPSIS AS ENACTED

BACKGROUND:

The Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) provides for special sentencing alternatives to prison for offenders convicted of certain sexual offenses.  Those alternatives include outpatient and inpatient sexual deviancy treatment.  The SRA also allows but does not require the Department of Corrections to provide sexual deviancy treatment to prisoners convicted of sexual offenses.  Some sexual offenses have a seven year statute of limitations while other sexual offenses have a three year statute of limitations.  Prosecutorial standards in the SRA provide recommendations for prosecutors' filing and disposition policies without abridging prosecutorial discretion.  No specific provisions govern filing of sexual abuse cases.  Judges currently have broad discretion to grant or deny continuances of trials.

SUMMARY:

Several provisions affecting sexual abuse crimes and special sentencing alternatives are adopted.  Prosecutors are encouraged to avoid prefiling diversion agreements in sexual assault cases.  The sentencing court may require the defendant to pay for sexual deviancy evaluations and sexual deviancy treatment.  The statute of limitations is increased from three years to seven years for incest, first degree rape and second degree rape if the victim was under 14 at the time of the offense.  A blue ribbon panel is established to study the effectiveness of the special sexual offender sentencing alternative to prison available to some persons convicted of certain sexual offenses.  The Sentencing Guidelines Commission is directed to evaluate the effectiveness of mandatory treatment for sexual offenders incarcerated in prison.

Continuances of trials in child sexual abuse cases are restricted.  The court will not approve a continuance of an original trial date when the victim is under 18 years of age unless the court finds that substantial and compelling reasons exist to continue the trial and the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

VOTES ON FINAL PASSAGE:

      House 96   0

      Senate    44     0 (Senate amended)

      House 97   0 (House concurred)

EFFECTIVE:July 23, 1989

Partial Veto Summary:  The provisions granting the sentencing court authority to require the defendant to pay for sexual deviancy treatment and evaluations are vetoed because the provision gave priority to payment and collection of those financial obligations above other financial obligations except restitution.  The statute of limitations extensions section is vetoed because another bill supersedes its provisions, creating a double amendment problem.  (See VETO MESSAGE)