WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 611

relative to repayment regarding appointed counsel for indigent criminal defendants.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Paul Berch and 5 co-sponsors

HB 611 would clarify and require repayment for court-appointed defense costs for indigent defendants, detailing who pays, when, and how collection occurs.

Inexpedient to Legislate: MA VV 01/07/2026 HJ 1 P. 72
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 611

Summary of HB 611 (2026) – New Hampshire

Title

Relating to repayment regarding appointed counsel for indigent criminal defendants.

Purpose and Intent

HB 611 addresses reimbursement requirements related to the provision of court-appointed counsel for indigent individuals charged with crimes. The bill seeks to clarify, modify, or mandate how repayment for appointed defense counsel is handled, including who bears costs, under what circumstances repayment is required, and the framework for collecting repayment.

Key Provisions and Changes (as introduced and debated)

Notes: The detailed language of amendments is reflected in committee reports and amendments discussed during the bill’s progression. The following captures the substantive focus evident from the legislative timeline and committee activity.

  • Repayment Obligations for Appointed Counsel: Establishes or adjusts the requirements for repayment to the state or a designated fund for the costs of court-appointed defense counsel provided to indigent defendants. This may involve specifying who must repay (defendants, or assets of defendants), and the conditions under which repayment is triggered (e.g., disposition of case, indigence status, or imputed income changes).
  • Eligibility and Determination of Indigence: Clarifies the criteria for qualifying an individual as indigent for the purposes of appointment of counsel and potentially for repayment obligations if wealth later appears or if case outcomes change.
  • Collection Mechanisms: Sets forth procedures for collecting repayment amounts, including timelines, interest, penalties, and allowable offsets or deductions. Could include cooperation with district attorneys, courts, or state treasury to enforce repayment.
  • Exceptions and Limitations: May specify exemptions (e.g., for certain offenses, PGMs, or if repayment would cause undue hardship) and any caps on repayment amounts or durations.
  • Timeline and Implementation: Establishes when the new repayment requirements take effect (e.g., prospective only or retroactive applicability) and any phased rollout or transitional provisions for cases in progress.

Affected Parties and Impacts

  • Indigent Defendants: Individuals who receive court-appointed counsel may be subject to repayment obligations under the bill. The impact depends on whether repayment is mandatory, contingent on post-disposition circumstances, or subject to income and hardship considerations.
  • State/Public Defender System and Courts: Responsible for implementing repayment procedures, maintaining records of appointed counsel costs, and operationalizing collection mechanisms.
  • District Attorneys and Financial Officers: Involved in enforcement, notification of repayment requirements, and potential collection actions.
  • Judicial and Fiscal Policy: Could influence budgetary planning for indigent defense services and the overall funding model for appointed counsel.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Committee Process: The bill moved through Judiciary and Finance committees with amendments. Notable steps include:
    • Public hearing in February 2025.
    • Introduction in January 2025 and referral to Judiciary, followed by amendments and executive sessions.
    • Majority and minority committee reports in March 2025, with “Ought to Pass with Amendment” recommendations (awareness of amendments 2025-0638h and 2025-0611h).
    • Final committee disposition in March 2025.
  • Legislative Fate: The bill was reported “Inexpedient to Legislate” by the House in January 2026, indicating that the committee or chamber ultimately determined it was not a suitable bill for passage in its current form, effectively ending its advance that session unless reintroduced or revised.

Practical Considerations

  • If enacted in a future session, the bill could alter the financial burden on defendants found to be indigent and their families, as well as the administration of indigent defense programs.
  • Policymakers would need to balance access to counsel with sustainability of funding for indigent defense and avoid imposing undue hardship on individuals who may lack resources post-disposition.

If you’d like, I can pull in the exact statutory language under consideration or compare with current NH statutes on appointed counsel repayment to provide a more granular side-by-side analysis.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.