Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coercive Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs adding coercive control and nonconsensual image offenses to domestic‑violence law
Summary
House Bill 15‑22 would expand the statutory definition of domestic violence to include coercive control and related noncriminal predicate acts (such as nonconsensual dissemination of private images); proponents cited escalation and lethal risk tied to control patterns, while critics warned about vagueness and risk of misapplication without narrow drafting and judicial training.
House Bill 15‑22, introduced by Representative Jay Markell, proposes adding coercive control and selected privacy‑invasion offenses to the list of predicate acts that can support a domestic‑violence protective order. Proponents said coercive control — a pattern of isolating, monitoring, controlling finances and movements, or using technology to surveil victims — often precedes physical harm.
Markell and supporters pointed to research and examples from other states that treat coercive control as part of an abuse pattern and argued New Hampshire’s statute should recognize these harms. “Coercive control is not a new or novel concept…as a pattern of conduct it has meaning,” the sponsor told the committee (Jay Markell, SEG 2746–2756).
Survivors and advocates recounted cases where nonphysical control escalated and led to severe outcomes; Representative Laurie Korzen and others cited the Marisol Fuentes case as illustrative and urged the committee to recognize non‑physical abuse as part of credible threat analysis (Representative Laurie Korzen, SEG 3141–3175; survivor testimony SEG 3346–3460).
Opponents — including some legal commentators and members of the public — urged caution. They cautioned that poorly defined coercive‑control language risks criminalizing noncriminal conduct or being used improperly in contested custody or civil disputes. Witnesses recommended narrowly tailored statutory language, judicial training, and pilot or subcommittee work to avoid weaponization of the statute and to protect due process and self‑represented litigants (various testimony, SEG 2870–2930; SEG 3110–3130).
Medical, legal and advocacy witnesses recommended options such as embedding coercive‑control evidence into the present credible‑threat standard rather than listing noncriminal acts as enumerated predicate offenses, and suggested detailed judicial guidance or risk‑assessment frameworks accompany any statutory change.
Next steps: Committee members discussed forming a subcommittee for detailed drafting and technical work to refine definitions and guardrails before any vote.
Sources: Committee testimony including sponsor Jay Markell, survivor and advocate testimony, and commentary from New Hampshire Legal Assistance and the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.
