Senate hears 'son‑of‑Sam' bill to bar murderers from profiting from crimes; AG's office flags legal, procedural issues

Senators and witnesses discussed SB 148, legislation designed to prevent people convicted of murder from profiting from the death of their victim or the criminal act.

Sponsor Senator Victoria Sullivan said the bill mirrors language used in other states’ “son‑of‑Sam” laws and is intended to prevent convicted killers from benefiting financially from a crime. “This bill prohibits those convicted of murder from financially profiting from the death of the victim,” she told the committee, adding that the measure addresses a legal gap in New Hampshire.

Benjamin Gotti, senior assistant attorney general and chief of the Department of Justice’s homicide unit, provided an analysis of the bill’s legal effects and flagged several procedural concerns. Gotti said a statute would fill a gap that prosecutors cannot always address by plea agreement, but he warned the committee that some language in the draft—drawn from other states—would operate differently under New Hampshire law and could create issues in practice. He raised questions about definitions (for example, who qualifies as an “interested person” eligible to bring a probate petition), the evidentiary standards to be used in probate court, potential collateral‑estoppel effects on subsequent criminal prosecutions, storage and disposition of property held by probate, and whether the statute should apply retroactively.

Sheila Cough, an estate attorney representing Crystal Saari (the mother and court‑appointed administrator of Harmony Montgomery’s estate), urged passage and described the difficulty families face under current New Hampshire law. “The current state of the law here in New Hampshire requires exactly that” of grieving families, she said, referring to the current need to litigate to prevent a culpable party from inheriting.

Committee discussion probed technical issues: whether a probate judge should apply a preponderance standard (the usual civil standard) to determine forfeiture when there is no criminal conviction; how to define who can file a petition; how courts would safeguard investigative materials in cases that remain subject to criminal investigation; and whether the Department of Justice’s victim‑witness advocates are the appropriate agents to hold funds pending litigation.

No final committee vote on SB 148 is recorded in the transcript. Committee members asked staff and counsel to review drafting options, including whether to limit the statute’s reach to certain homicide charges or to add procedural safeguards that would avoid impairing concurrent criminal prosecutions.