House panel embraces bill spurred by Adam Montgomery trial
Mar. 20—CONCORD — Sparked by the Adam Montgomery murder trial, a House committee unanimously endorsed legislation Wednesday to require that Class A felony defendants must attend their trials in person unless a judge agrees that an absence is advisable for "good cause shown."
Montgomery was absent for much of his trial that ended with convictions for second-degree murder, assault and other charges in connection with the beating death of his 5-year-old daughter, Harmony, on Dec. 7, 2019.
State prosecutors have asked the judge to compel attendance at the May 9 sentencing for Montgomery who has already informed court officials that he won't be there.
House Speaker Emeritus Stephen Shurtleff, D-Penacook, said crime victims and their families should have defendants present for trial, especially for sentencing when these they can can read witness statements often addressed to them.
"A victim witness statement would be read to an empty chair at the defense table, and I don't think that's right," Shurtleff told the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.
As written, the bill (HB 1713) would apply to anyone charged with the felonies that carry up to a 15-year term in state prison.
The panel voted, 15-0, in support of the measure, but a few Democrats on the committee said they will likely present a floor amendment in hopes of narrowing its scope.
State Rep. David Meuse, D-Portsmouth, questioned the fairness of compelling attendance for all defendants, even those later judged to be innocent of any crime.
Rep. Linda Harriott-Gathright, D-Nashua, also called the measure a "good bill," while adding it may need more work.
"I did have somewhat of a concern that a person would be punished even though they were not found guilty yet," Harriott-Gathright said.
"I like the idea of the person having to be there for sentencing."
Rep. Loren Selig, D-Durham, said she had concerns that the bill would add any punishment for failing to be served after any prison term handed down for the crime at issue.
'"This doesn't give the judge that flexibility," Selig said.
House Committee Chairman Terry Roy, R-Deerfield, said this bill gives the judge the flexibility to suspend any punishment for a defendant's failure to appear for the trial.
In the past, judges have also granted accommodations for defendants to not be in the courtroom because they were too disruptive, Roy said.
"We don't legislate based on one case, but what one case can do is illuminate a problem in the system," Roy said.
Defendants have the constitutional right to face an accuser, and Roy said the victim should have the right if he or she chooses to face someone convicted of a serious crime.
"What good is writing an impact statement to a perpetrator if he doesn't have to hear it? There is a penalty to breaking the law and you have to face it."
