Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances venue fix allowing prosecution of out-of-state drug suppliers in fatal overdoses
Summary
The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee advanced legislation to allow New Hampshire prosecutors to try "death resulting" cases in the county where a fatal overdose occurred or where the drugs were provided, a change proponents say is required after the state Supreme Court's State v. Fortune decision.
The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee advanced Senate Bill 58, a statutory venue fix intended to restore prosecutors' ability to bring "death resulting" cases after a New Hampshire Supreme Court decision narrowed where such prosecutions can be filed.
Senator Howard Pearl, who introduced SB 58 on behalf of the Merrimack County prosecutor, said the bill responds to the Supreme Court's September 2024 decision in State v. Fortune, which the sponsor and prosecutors said restricts venue to the county where a defendant committed an act (the sale of drugs) and prevents prosecution in the county where a fatal ingestion occurred. "Fortune changed the analysis in determining the venue where a death resulting case could be prosecuted," Pearl said.
Merrimack County Attorney Paul Halverson told the committee the bill does not create a new crime or add elements to death resulting prosecutions; instead it adds explicit venue language so a case may be heard in a county where the sale occurred or where the death occurred. Halverson described multiple investigations that were being prepared for prosecution but were halted after Fortune, including several cases where the provider sold drugs in Massachusetts and the fatal overdoses occurred in New Hampshire.
Tom Velardi of the Attorney General's Office said the bill would codify an approach used in other New Hampshire statutes that establish venue where elements or results of an offense occur (he cited identity-fraud and insurance-fraud venue statutes as precedents). Velardi and county attorneys argued the change will allow prosecutors to reach suppliers whose conduct leads to deaths in New Hampshire, including some out-of-state suppliers.
Portsmouth Police Detective Adam Kozilevskiy described working death-investigation cases that became impossible to prosecute after Fortune. "Imagine knowing who sold the drugs to the deceased but having no recourse," he said, and he urged the committee to give law enforcement and prosecutors the tool to hold suppliers accountable.
Committee members questioned whether cases could be reindicted in the proper county, whether federal prosecutors could take such matters, and how far upstream a prosecutor can trace a supply chain. Halverson and Velardi said reindicting is legally complex, the U.S. Attorney's Office accepts a narrow subset of cases and will rarely take routine death resulting matters, and tracing farther back in a distribution chain requires stronger proof linking a specific batch to the death.
The committee adopted an amendment that makes the bill effective upon passage rather than delaying implementation to January 2026. Supporters said the immediate effective date was requested because the Fortune decision already has prevented prosecutions and they feared further delay would permit more deaths without accountability.
In executive session the committee voted to report SB 58 "ought to pass as amended." The roll call recorded 10 votes in favor and 6 opposed; the motion carried.
What the bill would change: SB 58 would add venue language to the death-resulting statute to permit prosecution in either the county of sale/provision or the county where the fatal ingestion and death occurred; supporters described it as a procedural fix rather than a change in substantive criminal law.
