Committee Summary for House Judiciary (02/03/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
CACR7 00:04:48.840 - 8:33:54 AM	Public Hearing	relating to the presumption of innocence. Providing that in all cases and suits of the state against one of the people, the defendant shall be innocent unless proven guilty.	Potenza, Kelley(R)[A]2025
HB480 2025-061h 00:21:36.919 - 8:50:42 AM	Executive Session	relative to restoration of competency to stand trial for criminal defendants.	Pearson, Mark(R)[B]2025
HB480 2025-061h 00:34:12.599 - 9:03:18 AM	Executive Session	relative to restoration of competency to stand trial for criminal defendants.	Pearson, Mark(R)[B]2025
HB480 2025-061h 00:50:57.319 - 9:20:03 AM	Public Hearing	relative to restoration of competency to stand trial for criminal defendants.	Pearson, Mark(R)[B]2025
HB687 00:59:23.400 - 9:28:29 AM	Public Hearing	relative to class action settlements and consent decrees.	Corcoran, Travis(R)[A-]2025
HB369 2025-167h 01:44:31.880 - 10:13:37 AM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to misdemeanor sexual assault prosecutions and relative to the duty to report for sexual offenders and offenders against children.	Potenza, Kelley(R)[A]2025
HB697 01:51:01.159 - 10:20:07 AM	Public Hearing	relative to witness fees in criminal cases.	Potenza, Kelley(R)[A]2025
HB722 03:12:20.000 - 11:41:26 AM	Public Hearing	relative to establishing causes of actions against educational institutions that charge excessive tuition rates.	Corcoran, Travis(R)[A-]2025
HB746 03:56:49.439 - 12:25:55 PM	Public Hearing	relative to an award of attorney's fees upon a successful appeal of a local property tax assessment.	Love, David(R)[B+]2025
HB762 04:40:46.560 - 1:09:52 PM	Public Hearing	appropriating $30,000 to the judicial branch for the purpose of hiring a contractor to conduct a manual review of domestic violence and stalking cases and related criminal cases.	Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2025

CACR7: Representative Kelly Penzer, Strafford District 19, Rochester Support00:04:48.840 - 8:33:54 AM; Representative Penzer supports CACR7, which aims to amend the New Hampshire Constitution to explicitly state the presumption of innocence in all cases and suits of the state against individuals. She emphasized that this amendment would reinforce due process, prevent government overreach, clarify legal standards, empower voters, and set a precedent for other states. Penzer highlighted the importance of this principle in American law, particularly in cases where legal proceedings might not afford the same presumption of innocence as criminal cases, such as civil asset forfeiture or regulatory violations. She also discussed historical examples where the presumption of innocence was challenged, including the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and post-9/11 detentions. Penzer argued that the amendment would help protect against unfair burdens placed on individuals in civil or administrative matters and provided examples from family court where she believes the presumption of innocence is not being upheld. She urged the committee to support the amendment to ensure that the state always carries the burden of proof.
HB480 2025-061h: Chairman Lynn Information Only00:21:36.919 - 8:50:42 AM; Chairman Lynn opened an executive session on HB480, which was heard the previous week. The bill proposes a pilot program in either Merrimack or Strafford County to establish a forensic liaison position to assist in restoring competency. He noted that Representative Pell had concerns initially but had since reviewed the bill and was now satisfied. The chairman proposed to proceed with the bill, but Representative Andrew objected, citing the low attendance at the session. Despite this objection, the chairman proceeded with the vote, mentioning that those absent had not expressed objections previously. The amendment 2025-061h was moved and seconded, and the vote on the amendment and the bill as amended passed with 10 yes votes and 1 no vote from Representative Andrew. The bill will not go on the consent calendar and will be sent to the finance committee.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Andrew Oppose00:25:29.960 - 8:54:35 AM; Representative Andrew expressed a strong objection to proceeding with the executive session on HB480 due to the low attendance, with eight members missing. He felt it was unfair to make a decision without a fuller quorum and suggested filling the chairs with substitutes if necessary. Despite his objection, the vote proceeded, and he voted against the bill and the amendment.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Ber Information Only00:26:40.120 - 8:55:46 AM; Representative Ber asked about the procedure for ensuring bills are legally sound, expressing concern about the potential implications of bills becoming widely discussed after passing. Another representative explained that the legislature makes the law and occasionally seeks Supreme Court decisions for clarification, but primarily relies on advice during the bill drafting process.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Peder Support00:29:36.200 - 8:58:42 AM; Representative Peder confirmed that she had reviewed the amendment to HB480 and supported it. She pointed out that the amendment was not signed by a committee member, which would be necessary before voting. However, the amendment was moved and seconded, and the vote proceeded successfully.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Lisa Merer, Hillsboro District 44, Goffstown Support00:34:12.599 - 9:03:18 AM; Representative Merer began by humorously addressing the bill number 666, noting she did not choose it. She expressed gratitude for the passage of HB 376, which she described as a significant privacy win for library users across the state, particularly in Goffstown. She introduced HB480 as a continuation of that effort, aiming to expand the confidentiality of library user records under RSA 201-D:11. The bill seeks to clarify that library cards and membership statuses are exempt from right-to-know requests, mirroring the language used in 91-A:5. She highlighted that the current law seems clear but was not adhered to in her town, thus necessitating further clarification. The bill proposes to include restitution as a penalty for violations, emphasizing the need for a deterrent to protect library users' privacy. She stressed the importance of libraries as cornerstones of intellectual freedom and privacy, advocating for enhanced protections to align with broader standards for personally identifiable information.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Rambo Information Only00:37:28.400 - 9:06:34 AM; Representative Rambo questioned the intent behind the restitution provision in the bill, specifically whether it applies to intentional or unintentional disclosures. Representative Merer clarified that the bill addresses intentional disclosures, such as those resulting from right-to-know requests, and not accidental ones like data breaches. She provided an example from her town where a right-to-know request was used to publicize library card information, highlighting the need for the proposed legislation.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Beron Information Only00:39:37.200 - 9:08:43 AM; Representative Beron asked about the applicability of the bill to school libraries, to which Representative Merer responded that the bill specifically addresses public libraries and not school libraries. She expressed a wish that it did cover schools but clarified the current scope of the bill.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Smith Information Only00:40:43.319 - 9:09:49 AM; Representative Smith inquired about exceptions to the bill's confidentiality provisions beyond those already mentioned in the RSA. Representative Merer confirmed that the bill applies to everyone, with the only noted exception being a court order allowing the disclosure of library card usage.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Orgon Information Only00:42:04.119 - 9:11:10 AM; Representative Orgon raised concerns about proving the unauthorized disclosure of information and questioned the severity of the proposed fine, suggesting it might deter volunteers at local libraries. Representative Merer explained the process used in her town to trace the disclosure back to a right-to-know request filed by a select board chair's wife, which led to the information being spread on social media. She also addressed the concern about the fine's impact on political campaigns, suggesting that while candidates might discuss their library card status, publicizing it without consent should be prohibited.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Man Information Only00:44:15.000 - 9:13:21 AM; Representative Man asked about the relationship between the current bill and another bill concerning parents receiving information on a minor child's library status. Representative Merer confirmed that the other bill would be exempt from the confidentiality requirements of HB480.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Missouri Information Only00:45:19.800 - 9:14:25 AM; Representative Missouri expressed concern over the broad language in the bill's penalty provision, specifically the term 'discloses.' He questioned whether this would apply to casual conversations about someone's library card status. Representative Merer acknowledged the concern but emphasized the need for a penalty to deter the kind of privacy breach experienced in her town. She suggested amending the language to focus on public disclosure rather than private conversations.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Alexander Information Only00:48:15.640 - 9:17:21 AM; Representative Alexander proposed an amendment to drop the penalty section of the bill, suggesting that the clarification in section one should be sufficient. Representative Merer indicated she would be amendable to such a change, though she emphasized the importance of the penalty as a deterrent against future privacy breaches.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Alexander Information Only00:50:57.319 - 9:20:03 AM; Representative Alexander discussed the possibility of amending the bill to focus more specifically on library card status rather than membership status. He mentioned willingness to work on the bill while traveling in Southeast Asia, suggesting a focus on refining the bill's scope.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Smith Information Only00:51:50.440 - 9:20:56 AM; Representative Smith highlighted the ease with which information that might not be public can be shared, using the example of someone's travel whereabouts.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative M Information Only00:52:55.079 - 9:22:01 AM; Representative M suggested removing references to 'a member of the public' from the bill and proposed changing 'restitution' to 'civil penalty' to better reflect the intent of the bill, which is to impose a penalty rather than compensate for loss.
HB480 2025-061h: Representative Alexander Information Only00:53:58.559 - 9:23:04 AM; Representative Alexander responded to concerns about the term 'restitution' by pointing out that trust was lost in the process, suggesting that the breach led to intangible losses that cannot be measured.
HB480 2025-061h: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:55:01.760 - 9:24:07 AM; An unidentified speaker mentioned the involvement of other people in the issue and the ineffectiveness of the Ombudsman process, indicating the need for clearer laws as supported by 'Right to Know New Hampshire'.
HB687: Representative Corkrin Support00:59:23.400 - 9:28:29 AM; Representative Corkrin introduced HB687, explaining its purpose to restrict where funds from class action settlements can be directed. He noted that while the issue has not been significant in New Hampshire, it has been problematic elsewhere. The bill aims to ensure that class action lawsuits serve their intended purpose of compensating plaintiffs rather than being diverted to other causes.
HB687: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:03:40.200 - 9:32:46 AM; An unidentified speaker asked about the relevance of the 'Cypress' doctrine in the context of the bill, indicating a need for further clarification on how it applies to class action settlements.
HB687: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:05:03.400 - 9:34:09 AM; Another unidentified speaker provided an example of the 'Cypress' doctrine's application, discussing the repurposing of donated land originally intended for a school, highlighting how it could be adapted for other uses under certain conditions.
HB687: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:07:51.559 - 9:36:57 AM; An unidentified speaker raised the question of whether it is the government's role to dictate where class action settlements should be directed, suggesting a need to consider the implications of such governmental intervention in private litigation.
HB369 2025-167h: Representative Kutab Support01:44:31.880 - 10:13:37 AM; Representative Kutab moved to pass HB369 with amendment 2025-167h, which changes the age reference from 'less than 16 years of age' to 'less than 18 years of age' in the bill. The amendment was discussed with the prosecutor and was deemed acceptable.
HB369 2025-167h: Representative Andrews Oppose01:46:36.760 - 10:15:42 AM; Representative Andrews opposed the vote on HB369, citing a lack of sufficient committee members present for the vote, expressing concern over procedural issues rather than the content of the bill.
HB369 2025-167h: Representative Kutab Support01:48:52.760 - 10:17:58 AM; Representative Kutab confirmed the motion to pass HB369 with the amendment and agreed to prepare the report by the evening, indicating support for the amended bill.
HB697: Representative Kaitlyn Cab Support01:51:01.159 - 10:20:07 AM; Representative Kaitlyn Cab introduced HB697 on behalf of the prime sponsor, explaining that it allows civilian witnesses in criminal proceedings to receive the same rate of fees as those authorized federally, addressing the repeal of the previous state witness fee.
HB697: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:52:11.880 - 10:21:17 AM; An unidentified speaker asked about the federal witness fee rate, confirming it is currently $40 per day, and discussed the state's previous repeal of its witness fee statute.
HB697: Representative Buron Information Only01:53:30.960 - 10:22:36 AM; Representative Buron inquired about the wording 'entitled to a payment' in the bill, seeking clarification on whether it implies a fixed amount or an adjustable fee.
HB697: Representative Smith Information Only01:54:21.360 - 10:23:27 AM; Representative Smith asked about reimbursement for witnesses on their first appearance and the implications of referencing a federal rate, suggesting concerns about future rate adjustments.
HB697: Representative Trip Information Only01:59:10.280 - 10:28:16 AM; Representative Trip shared a personal experience of being a witness multiple times without the case being heard, emphasizing the issue of not being reimbursed for the first appearance.
HB697: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:58:06.719 - 10:27:12 AM; An unidentified speaker discussed the frequency of witnesses having to return multiple times due to trial scheduling and the need for a more efficient system, supporting the idea of compensation for witnesses.
HB722: Representative Corkren Support03:12:20.000 - 11:41:26 AM; Representative Corkren supported HB722, explaining its intent to define certain educational services as potentially fraudulent or deceptive. He highlighted the issue of student loans and the non-dischargeability in bankruptcy, arguing that the bill aims to protect students from degrees that cannot pay for themselves. He clarified that the bill includes a waiver for students acknowledging the degree's market value and does not extend protections to foreign students.
HB722: Lauren Banker Oppose03:27:00.080 - 11:56:06 AM; Lauren Banker, Director of Government Relations for the University System of New Hampshire, opposed HB722. She expressed concerns about the bill's requirement for detailed earnings data, which the universities do not collect and would be difficult to obtain. She noted that universities are already complying with federal regulations for financial transparency and suggested that the bill would create unnecessary administrative burdens.
HB722: Brandon Gad Information Only03:32:22.359 - 12:01:28 PM; Brandon Gad, Senior Assistant Attorney General, provided neutral testimony on HB722, focusing on enforceability and resource implications for the Attorney General's office. He explained the consumer protection process and the potential need for additional resources to enforce the bill effectively. Gad also mentioned that existing laws might already cover misleading representations by educational institutions about income expectations.
HB722: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:41:29.120 - 12:10:35 PM; The speaker discusses concerns about educational funding and potential misuse by colleges, referencing past issues with institutions like Capella University and the influence of the Department of Education under Betsy DeVos. They question whether similar issues could arise with the bill in question, particularly regarding the GI Bill and how colleges might exploit educational funds for veterans. The speaker also raises concerns about the enforceability of the bill, noting the difficulty in comparing tuition costs to average graduate salaries due to numerous influencing factors.
HB746: Representative Burron Information Only03:56:49.439 - 12:25:55 PM; Representative Burron briefly introduces House Bill 746, which deals with the award of attorney's fees upon a successful appeal of a local property assessment. No further details or opinions on the bill were provided in the testimony.
HB762: Representative Linda Haskins, Exeter, Rockingham 11 Support04:40:46.560 - 1:09:52 PM; Representative Haskins introduces House Bill 762 on behalf of Representative Zoe Manos, explaining that the bill aims to enable the judicial branch to hire an independent contractor to manually review domestic violence and stalking cases. The purpose is to compile and collate data for statistical analysis, which would help determine where resources are needed within the judicial branch. She mentions that currently, these cases are only recorded on paper, with no electronic filing or coordination with related criminal cases. The bill includes an appropriation of $30,000 for this project, but notes that alternative funding sources might be used if available. Haskins emphasizes that the data collection will not include personal information and is critical for understanding resource needs for both the judicial branch and support for victims.
HB762: Anthony Kenny, Middleton, New Hampshire Oppose04:45:22.000 - 1:14:28 PM; Anthony Kenny opposes House Bill 762, citing his personal experience with the judicial system involving domestic violence and related criminal cases. He describes a situation where his ex-partner allegedly assaulted him, leading to criminal charges against her that were later dismissed. Subsequent family court and domestic violence cases led to what he considers unjust treatment, including being held without bail and facing preventative detention. Kenny argues that spending $30,000 on an independent review is unnecessary, as there are already numerous cases that could be investigated without additional expense. He suggests that the money could be better spent on jury trials and questions the need for further investigation when cases like his and others are readily available for review.
HB762: Dana Alrie, Nashua, New Hampshire Oppose04:50:39.440 - 1:19:45 PM; Dana Alrie opposes House Bill 762, arguing that the judicial branch has already invested significant resources in addressing domestic violence through training and other initiatives led by Justice Marone. He questions the transparency and effectiveness of these efforts and criticizes the lack of access to training materials. Alrie expresses concern about the constitutionality of existing domestic violence statutes and the practice of granting orders based on who arrives at court first. He suggests that instead of spending $30,000 on a study, the legislature should consider forming a study committee to address the constitutionality of these laws or use existing case records to investigate issues within the judicial system.
HB762: Aaron Krian, General Counsel for the Judicial Branch Information Only04:57:11.638 - 1:26:17 PM; Aaron Krian provides information on House Bill 762, explaining the need for a manual review of domestic violence cases due to the majority of these cases being on paper. He notes that Representative Manos has been working with stakeholders to determine specific questions that need to be answered through this review. Krian highlights the necessity of such a study to address common questions about DV cases and mentions that the data collected would be used for statistical analysis and published in a report. He also addresses concerns about the transition to electronic records, explaining the costs and specific needs for DV cases, like an escape button feature. Krian anticipates an amendment to clarify the use of funds and the specific data to be collected.
HB762: Dana Alrie, Nashua, New Hampshire Information Only05:04:00.240 - 1:33:06 PM; Dana Alrie follows up on his previous testimony to question why domestic violence cases are not stored electronically, noting that they are regularly faxed. He inquires whether these faxes are retained electronically and suggests that this should be addressed.

Lynn, Bob(Chairman)(R)[B]2025	Kuttab, Katelyn(Clerk)(R)[B]2025	Mannion, Dennis(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2025
Smith, Marjorie(D)[F]2025	Bergeron, Dan(D)[F]2025	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[F]2025
Berch, Paul(D)[F]2025	Turer, Eric(D)[F]2025	Scully, Kevin(R)[A-]2025
Tripp, Richard(R)[B]2025	Andrus, Louise(R)[C+]2025	Ball, Lorie(R)[B+]2025
Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2025	Perez, Kristine(R)[B+]2025	Alexander, Joe(R)[A+]2025
McFarlane, Donald(R)[A]2025	Rombeau, Catherine(D)[CT]2025	Paige, Mark(D)[D-]2025