HB 632-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2007 SESSION
04/01
HOUSE BILL 632-FN
AN ACT relative to the penalty for death resulting from the trafficking of controlled drugs.
SPONSORS: Rep. W. Knowles, Straf 6; Rep. Welch, Rock 8; Rep. Tholl, Coos 2; Rep. Movsesian, Hills 22; Rep. Forest, Hills 17; Sen. Gottesman, Dist 12; Sen. Hassan, Dist 23
COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety
This bill establishes factors to be weighed by the court in sentencing a defendant who causes the death of another by providing such person with controlled drugs.
This bill is a request of the department of justice.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
07-0699
04/01
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Seven
AN ACT relative to the penalty for death resulting from the trafficking of controlled drugs.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Controlled Drug Act; Penalties. RSA 318-B:26, IX is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
IX.(a) Any person who manufactures, sells, or dispenses methamphetamine, lysergic acid, diethylamide phencyclidine (PCP) or any other controlled drug classified in schedules I or II, or any controlled drug analog thereof, in violation of RSA 318-B:2, I or I-a, is strictly liable for a death which results from the injection, inhalation, or ingestion of that substance, and may be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for such term as the court may order. For purposes of this section, the person’s act of manufacturing, dispensing, or selling a substance is the cause of a death when the injection, inhalation or ingestion of the substance is a substantial contributing factor in causing the death. It shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this section that the decedent contributed to his or her own death by his or her purposeful, knowing, reckless, or negligent injection, inhalation, or ingestion of the substance or by his consenting to the administration of the substance by another.
(b) When imposing a sentence under this section, the court shall consider the underlying purpose of this section: to extend criminal liability to, and to punish more severely, those individuals that engage in the trafficking of controlled drugs as a business, even if such individuals did not personally dispense or sell the drugs to the victims of their conduct, and to punish less severely those individuals whose conduct stems from a substance abuse problem. In determining an appropriate sentence, the factors to be weighed by the court include but are not limited to:
(1) Whether at the time the offense occurred, the defendant sold controlled drugs as a profit-making venture, or as a means to support the defendant’s personal drug habit;
(2) Whether at the time the decedent injected, inhaled, or ingested the substance, the defendant was present and engaged with the decedent in the drug abuse activities; and
(3) Whether the defendant personally delivered or transmitted the drugs to the decedent.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude or limit any prosecution for homicide. A conviction arising under this section shall not merge with a conviction of one as a drug enterprise leader or for any other offense defined in this chapter.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2008.
LBAO
07-0699
Revised 03/26/07
HB 632 FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT relative to the penalty for death resulting from the trafficking of controlled drugs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Department of Justice, Judicial Branch, Judicial Council, and Department of Corrections state this bill may increase state general fund expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2008 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on state, county, and local revenue or county and local expenditures.
METHODOLOGY:
The Department of Justice states this bill redefines the term “cause of death” as it relates to drug deaths caused by an act of manufacturing, dispensing or selling certain controlled drugs, making the term less restrictive than the definition under current law. The bill also defines factors that a sentencing court is to weigh when imposing a sentence for causing death through an act of manufacturing, dispensing or selling certain controlled drugs. However, it does not amend the sentence range currently defined in the statute. The Department states it currently prosecutes most major drug crimes in the state and passage of this bill would, in limited circumstances, enable the prosecutors to bring a more serious charge against a person that would otherwise be possible under current law. It is not expected this would result in a significant increase in prosecutions by the Department. As a result, the fiscal impact on expenditures is expected to be minimal and could be absorbed within the existing budget. It is not expected that this bill would result in increased appellate litigation. However, to the extent it did, it could be absorbed within the existing budget.
The Judicial Branch states this bill establishes factors which a sentencing judge must consider in cases involving drug deaths caused by an act of manufacturing, dispensing or selling certain controlled drugs, but does not add any new cases to the Branch. In an appropriate case, the bill may add to the evidence taken as both the prosecution and defense address the statutorily listed factors. Such prosecutions, however, are not common and therefore the Branch assumes the fiscal impact of this bill could be absorbed within the existing budget.
The Judicial Council states this bill will have limited application. However, when it is applied by the prosecutor, the potential impact is that a more rigorous representation must be provided as the stakes for the defendant are higher. The increased complexities arising form such a case may increase state expenditures on services other than council. The Council assumes that any cases, for which the Indigent Defense Fund may be liable, will in the first instance be handled by the public defender or a contract attorney on a fixed fee basis of $756 per felony charge and $15,000 per homicide charged. If an assigned counsel attorney must be used, the hourly rate of $60 with a fee cap of $3,000 per felony and $15,000 per attorney assigned to a homicide will apply. If a motion to exceed the fee cap is approved and/or “services other than counsel” are approved, these will also be chargeable to the Indigent Defense Fund. Any case where a defendant has been found guilty may also result in appeals to the Supreme Court which would have a cost implication for Indigent Defense expenditures made by the State. The Council is unable to predict the impact on cases that may result from the passage of this bill, and is unable to determine the exact fiscal impact at this time.
The Department of Corrections states the fiscal impact of this bill on state expenditures cannot be determined, as there is no way to estimate the number of individuals who would be guilty of a felony and what impact this may have on length of sentences. However, the average annual cost of incarcerating an individual in the general population is $31,140 and the cost to supervise an offender by the Department’s Division of Field Services for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 was $1,174.