Sen. Long backs SB 48 to limit restoration for low‑level offenses, keep court discretion

Senate Bill 48 would allow New Hampshire courts to dismiss certain low‑level misdemeanors and violations when a defendant is found not competent to stand trial, sponsor Sen. Long told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The bill’s purpose, supporters said, is to reduce the time people found not competent spend in jails or hospitals while awaiting competency evaluations or restoration services. ‘‘The goal of this legislation is not to undermine the judicial process or to decrease safety, but to ensure that individuals with mental illnesses are not languishing in jails or mental health institutions for minor crimes,’’ Holly Stevens, director of public policy at NAMI New Hampshire, told the committee.

What the bill would do: Sen. Long said SB 48 would remove ‘‘low‑level misdemeanors’’ from eligibility for court‑ordered restoration and give judges discretion to dismiss charges for nonviolent low‑level offenses after a competency determination. The bill specifically exempts certain crimes from dismissal, Stevens said, including stalking, endangering the welfare of a child, harassment and invasion of privacy.

Support and concerns: NAMI New Hampshire testified that New Hampshire lacks a formal restoration process and that dismissal for low‑level offenses could reduce backlog before forensic examiners and shorten time spent in custody for some defendants. ‘‘Other states restore about 80 to 90% of folks that are found not competent,’’ Stevens said; New Hampshire’s restoration rate is lower, she said.

Opposing view from prosecutors: Steven Andres (assistant county attorney) said he opposes the bill’s approach, arguing he has not seen cases where standalone class B misdemeanors or violations led to competency evaluations and that class B misdemeanors and violations do not lead to incarceration or commitment under current practice. Andres also raised concern that SB 48 would allow dismissal with prejudice for offenses that can carry collateral consequences and that the state’s lack of a formal restoration process, rather than dismissal, is the central problem.

Procedure and next steps: Committee members asked questions about how judges would exercise discretion, whether dismissals would occur after a hearing and whether dismissals would remove incentives for restoration programming. Witnesses said the bill preserves judge‑by‑judge discretion and that companion measures to develop forensic liaisons and restoration programs are being pursued.

Ending: Testimony closed with the committee hearing both support from NAMI New Hampshire and objections from a prosecutor; no committee vote was recorded at the hearing.