Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Venue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Pearl introduces SB 58 to allow prosecutions where overdose deaths occur
Summary
Senate Bill 58, introduced by Sen. Howard Pearl, would let New Hampshire prosecutors bring "death resulting" charges either where a victim died or where a deadly drug was manufactured, sold or dispensed. County attorneys urged the change after the state Supreme Court's decision in State v. Fortune narrowed venue.
Senate Bill 58 would let New Hampshire prosecutors bring ‘‘death resulting’’ charges either in the county where a person died or in the county where the manufacturing, selling or dispensing of the deadly drug took place, sponsor Sen. Howard Pearl said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
The legislation aims to address a gap created by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Fortune, which county prosecutors say limited venue in overdose-related prosecutions. ‘‘The direct impact of the Fortune decision is that individuals who provide deadly drugs outside the boundaries of New Hampshire cannot be held to account for deaths that occur within New Hampshire,’’ Paul Halverson, Merrimack County attorney, told the committee.
Why it matters: Prosecutors said the Fortune ruling has forced the state to drop pending cases when a sale occurred outside the county — and sometimes out of state — while the death occurred in New Hampshire. Without a venue rule allowing prosecution where the death occurred, county attorneys said they cannot effectively pursue some overdose-related prosecutions.
What the bill would do: Sen. Howard Pearl said SB 58 ‘‘broadens the criminal venue for prosecution in the county or judicial district where an element of the offense occurred in situations where all of the elements of the offense do not occur in one county or judicial district.’’ The amendment offered at the hearing (labeled 0218s) rewords the draft to place the new language into the intended chapter and to avoid a possible conflict with recently passed legislation (Senate Bill 15), Pearl said.
Prosecutors’ explanation: Assistant county attorney Steve Endris summarized the elements at issue under current law: ‘‘The Fortune case essentially says that this crime has three elements. The first element is that a sale or manufacturing of a controlled drug occurred. The second element is that the victim took the drug, and the third element is that the victim passed away. The Supreme Court says only one of those elements is really an action on the part of the defendant which is the sale. So the case has to be brought where the sale occurred.’’ Endris said SB 58 would allow venue where the death occurred, consistent with other New Hampshire venue statutes for certain crimes.
Support and technical questions: Halverson and Endris told the committee they had solicited views from county attorneys statewide and listed several who support the change (Keith Blair, Marsha Hornik, Pat Conway, Chris McLaughlin, Christine Hilliard, Keith Cormier and Emily Garod). Halverson and Endris also discussed a technical drafting point: one committee member suggested inserting the amendment as a new paragraph under the existing subsection (Roman numeral IX) rather than adding it after 9‑a; Halverson said that would be a technical improvement.
No committee action was recorded at the hearing. The bill was introduced with an amendment (0218s) and sponsors and prosecutors said they would answer technical questions and refine placement of the language.
Ending: Committee members asked technical questions about territorial jurisdiction and the interplay with RSA 625:9; speakers said the bill is intended to resolve a venue (where to charge) problem, not to create a new crime. No vote or committee recommendation was recorded at the hearing.
