Committee Summary for Senate Judiciary (02/04/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB58 0218s 00:02:53.280 - 12:01:59 PM	Public Hearing	relative to venue in criminal cases.	Pearl, Howard (R)[C+]2024
SB48 00:16:36.279 - 12:15:42 PM	Public Hearing	relative to competency to stand trial for certain offenses.	Long, Pat(D)
SB141 00:42:26.599 - 12:41:32 PM	Public Hearing	extending the time to petition for a new trial in certain cases.	Gannon, Bill(R)[C+]2024
SB289 01:14:48.560 - 1:13:54 PM	Public Hearing	relative to use and preservation of body-worn camera recordings in certain matters.	Gannon, Bill(R)[C+]2024

SB58 0218s: Senator Howard Pearl, representing the town of Loudon and District 17 Support00:02:53.280 - 12:01:59 PM; Senator Pearl introduced Senate Bill 58, which aims to broaden the criminal venue for prosecution in situations where elements of an offense occur in different counties or judicial districts. He explained that the bill addresses venue limitations from a recent New Hampshire Supreme Court decision, which had impacted the ability to prosecute individuals outside New Hampshire for drug-related deaths within the state. He noted that the original drafting of the bill was incorrect, and an amendment, 0218s, was provided to correct this and align it with recently passed Senate Bill 15. He deferred technical questions to Paul Helberson, the Merrimack County Attorney, who requested the bill.
SB58 0218s: Paul Helberson, Merrimack County Attorney Support00:05:41.000 - 12:04:47 PM; Paul Helberson supported Senate Bill 58, stating that it was necessary due to the Supreme Court's decision in State vs. Fortune, which prevented the prosecution of out-of-state drug dealers for deaths resulting from drug overdoses in New Hampshire. He mentioned that after the Fortune case, at least four pending cases had to be dropped. Helberson emphasized that the bill does not create a new crime but allows for prosecution in the jurisdiction where the death occurred, and he deferred to Steve Endress for further explanation on venue issues.
SB58 0218s: Steve Endress, Assistant County Attorney, Merrimack County Support00:07:25.639 - 12:06:31 PM; Steve Endress provided detailed testimony on Senate Bill 58, explaining the elements of the crime as per RSA 318-B:26 and the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in State vs. Fortune. He noted that the bill would remedy the venue issue by allowing prosecution where either the sale or the death occurred. He referenced similar statutes in New Hampshire and mentioned that other county attorneys supported the bill. He answered questions about jurisdiction and venue, clarifying that the bill would not allow for enforcement of out-of-state drug sales but would focus on the death resulting within New Hampshire.
SB48: Senator Long, representing District 20, which includes half of the city of Manchester Support00:16:36.279 - 12:15:42 PM; Senator Long introduced Senate Bill 48, which aims to address the lack of a formal competency restoration process in New Hampshire. The bill seeks to remove low-level misdemeanors from eligibility for restoration and gives discretion to the court to ensure the individual is not a danger to others. The senator highlighted that the bill prevents individuals with mental health issues from languishing in jails or hospitals for minor crimes and mentioned that further details would be provided by NHMA.
SB48: Holly Stevens, Director of Public Policy at NAMI New Hampshire Support00:19:31.679 - 12:18:37 PM; Holly Stevens testified in favor of Senate Bill 48, explaining that NAMI New Hampshire requested Senator Long to sponsor the legislation. She addressed concerns about discretion, stating that the court would use it after a hearing to determine if charges should be dismissed. Stevens highlighted the low restoration rates in New Hampshire compared to other states and the long wait times for individuals in jail without services. She discussed the recommendations from the committee to study competency restoration and emphasized that dismissing certain misdemeanors would help alleviate the backlog of competency evaluations. The bill balances individual freedoms with public safety and resource allocation.
SB48: Stephen Andress, Assistant County Attorney, Merrimack County Oppose00:28:47.600 - 12:27:53 PM; Stephen Andress opposed Senate Bill 48, stating that he had never seen competency raised for standalone Class B misdemeanors or violations in his over 20 years as a prosecutor. He argued that the bill would not impact incarceration or the time spent in mental health institutions, as individuals cannot be jailed or institutionalized for these charges alone. He criticized the bill for giving up on restoring competency for low-level offenses and expressed concern over dismissing charges with prejudice, which goes against the usual practice of dismissing without prejudice. Andress suggested that addressing the backlog of evaluations at the Office of Forensic Examiners was a more pressing issue.
SB141: Senator Ganon, Prime Sponsor Support00:42:26.599 - 12:41:32 PM; Senator Ganon opened the hearing on Senate Bill 141, thanking the committee for their attendance and acknowledging the live stream audience. He mentioned that he was asked to sponsor the bill, which he found interesting due to its defense perspective, though he usually represents the prosecution. The bill addresses the three-year time frame for filing a petition for a new trial in New Hampshire, particularly when new evidence or scientific advancements are discovered. He emphasized the importance of justice and preventing innocent people from serving unnecessary jail time. He noted that only six other states have similar strict time limits, while 44 states have different approaches. The bill proposes an exemption to the three-year rule to allow courts to consider new evidence, with judges deciding whether to proceed to a new trial based on the new evidence's merit. Senator Ganon believes that only a few cases will meet the criteria for a new trial, preventing a flood of cases in the courts.
SB141: Steven Andress, Assistant County Attorney, Merrimack County Oppose00:47:06.640 - 12:46:12 PM; Steven Andress, along with Paul Halverson, the Merrimack County Attorney, opposed Senate Bill 141 due to its language, though not the concept itself. They highlighted their experience as prosecutors and their discussions with the Innocence Project and the Attorney General's office regarding similar legislation the previous year. They expressed concern over the bill's placement within RSA 526, which deals with civil cases and has not been updated since the 1840s. They suggested that the bill should be placed under RSA 651D, which deals with post-conviction DNA testing, and proposed language changes to clarify that the bill only changes the statute of limitations and not the criteria for granting a new trial. They emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach to address new scientific evidence, rather than amending an outdated statute.
SB141: Paul Halverson, Merrimack County Attorney Oppose00:50:52.880 - 12:49:58 PM; Paul Halverson supported Steven Andress's opposition to the language of Senate Bill 141. He expressed concerns about the lack of an endpoint in the bill's proposed language, particularly regarding collateral consequences that could extend indefinitely. He was also concerned about the broad statement on newly discovered evidence without a standard for evaluating its credibility. Halverson mentioned that last year's discussion on Senate Bill 507, which was vetoed by the governor, suggested a more comprehensive approach using the structure of RSA 651D. He agreed with the concept of not barring evidence that could exonerate someone but criticized the open-ended language of the current bill, which could lead to unnecessary litigation. He expressed willingness to work with stakeholders to create a more comprehensive bill.
SB141: Cynthia Muso, Staff Attorney, New England Innocence Project Support01:00:44.720 - 12:59:50 PM; Cynthia Muso, a staff attorney with the New England Innocence Project, supported Senate Bill 141. She explained her background as a public defender in New Hampshire and her understanding of the statute of limitations' impact on wrongful convictions. Muso clarified that the bill only seeks to extend the time for filing a petition for a new trial based on new evidence, not to change the criteria for granting a new trial. She addressed misconceptions about the bill's intent and emphasized that it is not trying to expand the number of new trials but rather provide a pathway for innocent people to seek justice. Muso highlighted the case of Gary Cifizzari in Massachusetts, where new evidence led to exoneration after 35 years, a situation that would be impossible under New Hampshire's current statute. She stressed the importance of the bill in addressing wrongful convictions and improving the criminal justice system.
SB141: Winnie Ye, State Policy Advocate, Innocence Project Support01:09:55.880 - 1:09:01 PM; Winnie Ye, a state policy advocate at the Innocence Project, expressed support for Senate Bill 141. She emphasized the bill's thoughtful approach to improving the post-conviction mechanism in New Hampshire. Ye highlighted the importance of the bill in ensuring that innocent people are not languishing in prison and praised Senator Ganon's leadership in sponsoring the bill. She noted that a version of the bill passed both chambers the previous session and appreciated the opportunity to discuss it with stakeholders. Ye provided statistics on wrongful convictions and stressed the need for the bill to allow innocent individuals to file for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence or discredited forensic science. She clarified that the bill would not lead to a flood of litigation and is essential for addressing wrongful convictions and improving the criminal justice system.
SB289: Senator G Support01:14:48.560 - 1:13:54 PM; Senator G introduced Senate Bill 289, which deals with the use and preservation of body-worn camera recordings. The bill addresses when copies of these recordings can be made and distributed to prosecutors and defendants, and when they need to be destroyed. Senator G noted that the bill is similar to last year's Senate Bill 362 and emphasized the need for clarity on how body-worn camera footage can be used in criminal and administrative hearings.
SB289: Stephen Andress, Assistant County Attorney, Merrimack County Support01:16:55.320 - 1:16:01 PM; Stephen Andress, along with Paul Halverson, the Merrimack County Attorney, supported Senate Bill 289. They noted that the bill's language is similar to last year's Senate Bill 362, which was referred to the law enforcement accreditation commission. They highlighted the shortcomings and ambiguities in the current statute, RSA 105D2, regarding the copying and sharing of body-worn camera recordings. The bill clarifies that recordings can be copied for criminal and administrative hearings and ensures privacy protections follow the copies. They expressed no objection to including civil hearings in the bill and emphasized the importance of protecting victims', witnesses', and defendants' privacy rights.
SB289: Paul Halverson, Merrimack County Attorney Support01:21:00.800 - 1:20:06 PM; Paul Halverson supported Senate Bill 289 and added that the bill protects the privacy of victims and witnesses, as well as defendants' process rights. He noted that the bill ensures body-worn camera footage is available for post-conviction litigation and balances the necessary protections for all involved in the criminal justice process. Halverson mentioned that other county attorneys also supported the bill.
SB289: Jessica King, Senior Assistant Attorney General, New Hampshire Department of Justice Support01:25:07.320 - 1:24:13 PM; Jessica King testified on behalf of Attorney General Formela in support of Senate Bill 289. She believed the bill helps clarify when body-worn camera footage can be used in litigation and welcomed the clarification in the law. King emphasized the bill's role in furthering accountability in policing and suggested amending the bill to include civil litigation. She explained that body-worn camera footage can be crucial in civil suits to hold law enforcement accountable or exonerate officers.
SB289: Marissa Chase, representing the Civil Plaintiff's Bar Support01:31:55.239 - 1:31:01 PM; Marissa Chase supported Senate Bill 289 and agreed with the prior testimony from prosecutors and the Attorney General's office. She suggested adding civil proceedings to the bill and provided specific language changes to include civil hearings. Chase emphasized the importance of body-worn camera footage in civil cases to prove or disprove allegations and requested that the footage be released only after the conclusion of any related criminal matter.
SB289: Roger Phillips, Chairman of the Adult Parole Board Support01:33:45.840 - 1:32:51 PM; Roger Phillips supported Senate Bill 289, particularly the inclusion of administrative proceedings. He noted that the parole board had received requests for body-worn camera footage in parole violation and revocation hearings. Phillips explained the need for a protective order to comply with the statute and appreciated the assistance from the Merrimack County Attorney's office. He believed the bill would ensure the production of such evidence in administrative proceedings.
SB289: Mike A Support01:37:11.560 - 1:36:17 PM; Mike A supported Senate Bill 289 as written but questioned whether the retention period for body-worn camera footage should be longer. He discussed the current statute's ambiguity regarding whether body-worn camera recordings are municipal records and the default retention period for municipal records. He noted that RSA 105D2 requires the destruction of body-worn camera footage within a certain time frame, with exceptions for civil or criminal litigation. Mike A believed the bill's retention policy was adequate.

Gannon, Bill(Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Abbas, Daryl(V Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Carson, Sharon(R)[C]2024
Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024	Reardon, Tara(D)