NH Legal Resource | Personal Injury | DWI | Criminal Law | New Hampshire Lawyer

The New Hampshire House has rejected HB 451, a bill that had sparked wide debate and would have enabled residents to carry a concealed weapon without first obtaining a permit from the local police. Supporters of the bill wanted New Hampshire to join Vermont in its ‘constitutional carry’ laws, while opponents said the current law is working.

Opponents of HB 451

HB 451 would have repealed the current law that requires a permit to carry a concealed pistol or revolver. The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee did not support the bill, and voted 14-4 in favor of killing the bill, followed by a 226-144 House vote against the bill.

Opponents of the bill said that it would have nullified New Hampshire’s reciprocity agreement with some states that currently allow those with concealed carry permits to carry in other states. Democrat Rep. Renny Cushing, (Hampton) said that the “current law in the state of New Hampshire requiring a permit from the local community selectmen or local police is working. It’s a good policy we have in place and I suggest we keep it.”

In Support of HB 451

In Vermont and other states that have a ‘constitutional carry’ policy, convicted felons and others who are banned from owning guns are not able to carry firearms. HB 451 would have continued to bar them from gun ownership. Republican Rep. John Burt (Goffstown) said “The bad guys never have permits. It’s just funny that way. But the government says we the good guys must have permits.” Burt said that he supported the bill because he believes in his “God-given right to own a firearm,” and said that law- abiding citizens should not be required to seek a permit from the local police chief, town selectmen, or government body, the Union Leader reported.

Republican state representatives from New Hampshire have introduced a bill designed to reduce the charge of simple assault. Under the conditions of the bill, the charge would drop from a misdemeanor crime down to a mere violation-level offense in cases where physical contact “ doesn’t result in any harm or injury.”

Both the Concord Monitor and the Huffington Post have cited various advocacy groups’ dismay over the new bill, indicating that it may have the effect of permitting domestic abuse. What do you need to know about the bill? Having an idea of the merits of the charge, who is in favor of the bill, and who opposes it can give you an idea of the stakes involved.

What is a Simple Assault in New Hampshire?

Under New Hampshire state law § 631:2-a, which has been in effect since 1979, a simple assault occurs in one of three situations:

• When a person purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to someone else
• When a person recklessly causes bodily injury to someone else
• When a person negligently causes bodily injury to someone else with a deadly weapon

According to the statute as it currently stands, the charge of simple assault is a misdemeanor offense unless one of the above injuries occurred during a fight in which both people involved consented to that fight. In such a case as this, the statute already indicates that the simple assault carries the lesser charge of a violation.

The new bill proposes that the violation-level offense of simple assault would lead only to a $100 fine and 10 hours of community service.

Who is in Favor of the Bill?

Supporters of the bill, including the three state representatives who introduced it in January, argue that “the current law is draconian and too broad.” What does this mean? Representative Frank Sapareto explained the dangers of a simple assault charge—as it is now, a misdemeanor—to the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Commission. He referred to his own arrest for simple assault in 2011, and explained that “the only harm committed, the only harm whatsoever—and serious harm, detrimental harm—occurs by the charge, from the assault charge.”

Two other representatives supporting the bill are Representatives Keith Murphy and Kelleigh Murphy, husband and wife. Kelleigh Murphy was arrested in 2009 for a simple assault charge filed by an employee at the couple’s restaurant, Murphy’s Taproom. The charge was later dropped. Keith Murphy indicated that he and his wife support the bill because they hope to prevent embarrassments like the one they faced.

Who Opposes the Bill?

Law enforcement groups and domestic violence advocates argue that the bill will only “empower bullies and abusers.” Jill Rockey, the executive director of a crisis center in central New Hampshire, said that if the bill passes, it will be more “difficult for the police to prosecute cases of domestic violence.” She emphasized that abusers in domestic relationships already try to hide their crimes, and by reducing the charge of simple assault to a mere violation, these batterers will be punished only with a nominal fine and the unlikely deterrent of limited community service hours.

The Huffington Post echoed Rockey’s concerns, reporting on State Representative Mark Warden’s comments about the bill. He suggested that government regulations should not oversee domestic relations, as “a lot of people like being in abusive relationships.”

News agencies make clear that the bill is receiving a lot of heat in our state. Whether the bill passes or not, it may have significant consequences for those accused of certain criminal offenses.

Do you routinely talk on your cellphone while you’re driving a motor vehicle? A recent New Hampshire Supreme Court decision suggests that you might want to think again before picking up your phone behind the wheel. Even though New Hampshire has no bans for talking on a cell phone while driving, according to an article in Boston.com, this type of cell phone use can be used to convict a driver of criminally negligent homicide.

State of New Hampshire v. Lynn Dion: History of the Case

Click Here to download the full PDF from the NH Courts

In June 2009, Lynn Dion was driving home at around 9 p.m. The article in the Boston Globe reported that Dion made approximately six calls on her cell phone throughout her half-hour drive home. During the last call, she was on her cell phone phone with a friend. Unbeknownst to Dion, Genny Bassett had left her house on foot to accompany her friend Elsa Gonnella back home after the women had spent the evening at Bassett’s house playing cards and watching movies.

While Dion talked on her cell phone, Bassett and Gonella were walking across the street in a “freshly painted crosswalk,” but Dion was distracted and didn’t stop in time to let the two women cross. The Boston Globe reported that Dion hit the brakes, but Bassett suffered a fatal skull fracture when her head hit the windshield.

The Merrimack County Prosecutor, George Waldron, argued that “cell phone distraction” was the only “plausible reason” for the accident. The lower court agreed and convicted Dion of criminally negligent homicide. Dion appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, contending that, because talking on a cell phone while driving is not illegal per se, that very conduct—cell phone talking and driving—can’t be the reason that someone is convicted of criminally negligent homicide.

By October 2012, Dion’s case had made it to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, marking the first case in which the court would deal with cell phone use in relation to a criminally negligent homicide conviction.

Cell phone Use Can Lead to a Criminally Negligent Homicide Conviction

This month, the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld Dion’s conviction in a 5-0 decision. According to the Concord Monitor, Associate Justice Carol Ann Conboy made clear that the act of talking on a cell phone while driving is not in and of itself illegal or sufficient evidence for a criminally negligent homicide conviction, but this wasn’t the issue in Dion’s case. Rather, Conboy emphasized that cell phone use, just like any other legal activity, must be done with the care of a reasonable person, and when it isn’t  it can lead to illegal acts.

The court emphasized that Dion did not see the women in the crosswalk and did not apply her brakes in time to prevent an accident, “despite a clear line of sight and ample time.” As a result, her inattention rose to the level of a “gross deviation from the conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.”

This decision has serious implications for New Hampshire drivers, and for victims of motor vehicle offenses. According to Foster’s Daily Democrat, Senior Assistant Attorney General Susan McGinnis hopes that the decision sends a message to New Hampshire drivers that driving while talking on your cell phone is “incredibly dangerous.”

Have you been charged with reckless driving or negligent homicide as a result of a motor vehicle offense? Our experienced criminal defense attorneys can discuss your case with you today.