HB 1422 revises New Hampshire’s law governing petitions for a new trial. Under current law, a petition generally must be filed within three years after judgment or the failure of the suit. The bill keeps that general three-year deadline, but creates an exception for certain criminal cases involving felony convictions or class A misdemeanors when the petitioner is incarcerated, serving a sentence, or otherwise subject to collateral consequences. To qualify for the exception, the petition must specifically allege newly discovered evidence and assert innocence.
The bill defines newly discovered evidence broadly to include evidence that can be subjected to new or additional forensic testing, evidence that can be evaluated under new scientific understanding, or evidence that was unavailable at trial but is available when the petition is filed. It also allows a court to reject duplicative petitions that have already been finally decided. For qualifying petitions, the court must first decide whether the filing makes a prima facie showing before holding a hearing, and if the petitioner is indigent, counsel must be appointed at that hearing stage. The bill also preserves the existing standard for new-trial motions under RSA 526:1 and directs that DNA evidence continue to be handled under RSA 651-D. It further requires the state, upon request, to reactivate victim services during reinvestigation and related proceedings in criminal cases.
The bill’s impact is to expand access to post-conviction review in limited criminal cases by permitting late-filed new-trial petitions based on innocence claims supported by newly discovered evidence. It would affect criminal defendants, prosecutors, courts, indigent petitioners, and victims by changing filing deadlines, screening procedures, and counsel appointment requirements, while also adding a victim-services obligation during reinvestigation. The effective date is January 1, 2027, so the changes would apply prospectively from that date.
Overall sentiment appears supportive and reform-oriented, with the bill framed as a mechanism to address wrongful convictions and allow courts to consider modern forensic or scientific developments. Because there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition in the supplied materials. The main likely point of contention is the balance between finality of judgments and expanded opportunities for post-conviction litigation, including concerns about duplicative petitions, court workload, and the scope of the innocence exception.
HB 1422 amends RSA 526:4 to create a new exception to the three-year deadline for petitions for a new trial in certain criminal cases, while preserving the existing standard for new-trial motions under RSA 526:1 and the separate DNA-evidence process under RSA 651-D. It also adds procedural requirements for prima facie review, possible dismissal of insufficient petitions, and appointment of counsel for indigent petitioners at the hearing stage. In addition, it requires the state to reactivate victim services during reinvestigation and related proceedings when a criminal conviction is being challenged.
The bill appears generally favorable and reform-minded, aimed at allowing courts to consider innocence claims supported by newly discovered evidence and modern forensic or scientific developments. No vote totals or committee testimony were provided, so there is no documented opposition or amendment debate in the supplied record. The overall tone of the measure suggests support for post-conviction review and wrongful-conviction relief, tempered by procedural limits intended to screen out repetitive or unsupported filings.
The likely central point of contention is the tradeoff between finality and fairness: supporters would view the bill as a necessary avenue for innocent people to obtain review based on new evidence, while critics may worry it opens the door to more post-conviction litigation and burdens courts and prosecutors. Another possible area of concern is the breadth of the definition of newly discovered evidence, which includes new forensic testing and new scientific understanding, as well as the requirement that the petitioner specifically allege innocence. Victim-services provisions may also draw attention from those focused on the impact of renewed litigation on victims and their families.