HB 697 revises New Hampshire law governing witness fees in criminal cases. Under the bill, civilian witnesses who are summoned and appear at the designated time and place would generally not receive a fee for that initial appearance. The bill creates an exception when a civilian witness appears as required but, through no fault of their own, must return on a second or later day to testify in the same criminal proceeding. In that situation, the witness would be entitled to a daily attendance fee and mileage reimbursement for each additional day of attendance.
The bill also ties the amount of the fee and mileage to the federal witness-fee standard in 28 U.S.C. § 1821. The act would take effect on January 1, 2026. In practical terms, the bill narrows compensation for first-day appearances while preserving reimbursement for repeated court appearances caused by the scheduling needs of the proceeding.
Impact
HB 697 repeals and reenacts RSA 516:16, changing the statutory rules for witness compensation in criminal proceedings. It would affect civilian witnesses, court administrators, and whichever state entity is responsible for paying witness fees, though the fiscal note says the bill is unclear on whether that responsibility lies with the Judicial Branch or the Department of Justice. The fiscal note anticipates no revenue impact but an indeterminable increase in state expenditures beginning in FY 2026, depending on how often witnesses are required to return on multiple days.
Sentiment
The available materials suggest a generally practical, administrative purpose rather than a controversial policy change. The bill appears aimed at standardizing and limiting witness-fee eligibility while still compensating civilians who must make repeated court appearances through no fault of their own. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s introduction and fiscal analysis.
Contention
The main point of uncertainty is fiscal and operational: the fiscal note says the cost increase is indeterminable because it depends on how often multi-day witness testimony occurs. Another issue flagged by the fiscal note is ambiguity over which state entity would pay the fees, since the bill does not clearly assign responsibility to the Judicial Branch or the Department of Justice. Substantively, the only likely policy tension is between limiting compensation for initial appearances and ensuring fair reimbursement for witnesses who are required to return to court.