Opinion ID: 2633584
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The legislative history of AS 09.10.065

Text: Before 2001, AS 09.10.060(c)  the predecessor to AS 09.10.065  provided for a three-year statute of limitations for actions for damages against perpetrators of sexual abuse: A person who was the victim of sexual abuse may not maintain an action for recovery of damages against the perpetrator of the act or acts of sexual abuse based on the perpetrator's intentional conduct for an injury or condition suffered as a result of the sexual abuse unless an action is commenced within three years. In this subsection, sexual abuse means an act committed by the defendant against the plaintiff maintaining a cause of action if the defendant's conduct would have violated a provision of AS 11.41.410-11.41.440 or 11.41.450-11.41.458 at the time it was committed. [14] In 2001 the legislature repealed and reenacted AS 09.10.060(c). [15] For ease of reference, we refer to the repeal and reenactment as an amendment. The amendment eliminated the three-year statute of limitations and allowed a plaintiff to bring an action for sexual abuse at any time: (c) Notwithstanding other provisions in this chapter, a person may bring an action at any time for the following acts: (1) felony sexual abuse of a minor; (2) felony sexual assault . . . . This amendment took effect on October 1, 2001. [16] When it was introduced as House Bill (H.B.) 210, the 2001 amendment initially dealt only with statutes of limitations applicable to criminal prosecutions. Representative Meyer, the bill sponsor, explained that the bill was motivated by developments in forensic technology, including DNA testing, which made it possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a sexual assault had occurred even twenty years after the crime. [17] The first mention of lifting the statute of limitations for civil claims of sexual abuse came from Representative Berkowitz, who observed that while H.B. 210 would allow the state an unlimited window of opportunity to prosecute sex offenders, victims of such crimes would remain bound by existing statutes of limitation. [18] At his suggestion, the house adopted language lifting the civil statute of limitations, but at no point did the house consider whether the language revived time-barred civil claims or had any retroactive effect. [19] Moreover, when Representative Meyer presented the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he again focused on the criminal provisions, and the senate did not engage in any significant discussion about the effect of the amendment lifting the civil statute of limitations for sexual abuse. [20] In 2003 the legislature again amended this provision. The amendment differentiated between felony and misdemeanor sexual abuse, adding a three-year statute of limitations for misdemeanor abuse, and recodified AS 09.10.060(c) as a separate provision, AS 09.10.065. This statute provides that: (a) A person may bring an action at any time for conduct that would have, at the time the conduct occurred, violated provisions of any of the following offenses: (1) felony sexual abuse of a minor; (2) felony sexual assault; or (3) unlawful exploitation of a minor. (b) Unless the action is commenced within three years of the accrual of the claim for relief, a person may not bring an action for conduct that would have, at the time the conduct occurred, violated the provisions of any of the following offenses: (1) misdemeanor sexual abuse of a minor; (2) misdemeanor sexual assault; (3) incest; or (4) felony indecent exposure. Although this amendment was enacted on June 6, 2003, it was made retroactive to October 1, 2001 to the extent permitted by the state and federal constitutions. [21]