Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police and prosecutors urge lowering mens rea in child‑endangerment statute; opponents warn of overcriminalization
Summary
Detectives and chiefs told the committee that changing the mens rea for endangering-the-welfare (HB 257) from 'purposefully' to a lower threshold would let prosecutors address dangerous parental conduct; parents, safety advocates and some legislators cautioned 'recklessly' may be too broad and suggested 'knowingly' or clearer drafting.
Senator Long introduced HB 257, a bill that proposes modifying the mental‑state element for the crime of endangering the welfare of a child or incompetent. Detective Sergeant Alex Marvin of the Newport Police Department and Lieutenant Nick Georgeulis of Manchester Police described cases where the current "purposeful" standard is too high to secure criminal charges, and they urged replacing it with language such as "reckless" or at minimum "knowingly." Marvin summarized the change in statutory terms: "The definition we're looking for is reckless rather than purposeful," and read statutory language defining reckless conduct as the conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Law‑enforcement witnesses argued the proposed change would allow criminal charges where caregivers grossly deviate from acceptable conduct while aware of substantial risk. "I think it is much more appropriate for the types of crimes we're dealing with," Lieutenant Georgeulis said, endorsing a reckless standard that still requires awareness of risk.
Several public commenters, including representatives of firearms and outdoor‑sports groups and civil‑liberties advocates, pushed back. They warned that adopting a 'reckless' threshold could sweep in ordinary parental decisions—such as taking children skiing, to a firing range, or to youth sports—and urged that the statute be crafted to exclude commonplace activities and preserve safeguards against overreach. One witness asked whether parental waivers or sporting releases would unintentionally criminalize routine activities; others suggested "knowingly" as a narrower compromise.
The New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association testified in support of the bill, with a chief noting that skiing and other common activities would not typically meet the high bar of a "gross deviation" required for recklessness. Committee members asked staff to review RSA definitions of mental states before drafting amendments. The hearing closed with no immediate committee vote.
