Penalties increase for assaults on emergency staff

Summary#

New Hampshire SB 667, “Relative to the assault of emergency room personnel,” amends RSA 631:1 and RSA 631:2, the state’s first- and second-degree assault laws. It is signed into law and takes effect January 1, 2027. Its stated goal is to establish felony-level offenses for assaults on emergency room personnel.

  • Knowingly causing serious bodily injury to emergency room personnel acting in the line of duty will meet a condition for first-degree assault.
  • Knowingly causing bodily injury to emergency room personnel acting in the line of duty will meet a condition for second-degree assault.
  • The bill defines emergency room personnel to include people in a hospital emergency department who provide or help provide services or medical care for the general public. The list includes health care professionals, clerks, technicians, students and volunteers.

What it means for you#

  • Emergency room workers, students and volunteers: If you fit the bill’s definition and are acting in the line of duty, the added assault provisions apply to injuries knowingly caused to you.
  • People accused of assault: The added provisions make the specified conduct eligible for first- or second-degree assault treatment. The bill does not itself establish that a person is guilty; the relevant conditions still have to be met.
  • General public: The bill does not create a new service or a separate process for emergency departments.
  • The bill amends existing assault provisions. The parent statutes were not supplied, so the full current rules and penalties, and how these amendments fit with them, could not be verified.

Money#

The fiscal note estimates no revenue change, but says state, county and local expenditure effects are indeterminable.

  • The note identifies possible effects on prosecution, courts, incarceration, probation and parole costs.
  • It lists no appropriation to cover costs.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not state the penalty ranges. The supplied analysis calls the new offenses felony-level, but the parent statutes needed to verify the exact penalties were not provided.
  • The bill does not define “acting in the line of duty.” The meaning of “bodily injury” and “serious bodily injury” under the existing law could not be checked against the materials supplied.
  • The bill does not estimate how often the new provisions would apply or how much they might add to state or local costs.

Case for#

  • The bill treats knowing injury to emergency room personnel on duty as a specific basis for first- or second-degree assault, much as the amended provisions already do for certain other public-safety workers.
  • Its definition covers not only medical professionals but also people who assist with services or care, including clerks, students and volunteers.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that the law should recognize the seriousness of knowingly injuring people while they are serving the public in an emergency department.

Case against#

  • The second-degree provision applies to bodily injury, while the bill does not set a further threshold for that term. The exact legal meaning depends on existing law, which was not supplied.
  • The definition covers a broad range of emergency-department workers and helpers, including students and volunteers. The bill does not explain how “acting in the line of duty” will apply to every role.
  • The bill may add costs for courts and correctional systems, but the fiscal note cannot estimate them.