Mandatory attendance for sentencing bill hits roadblock
May 20—CONCORD — A bill prompted by Adam Montgomery's initial refusal to attend his sentencing on a murder conviction has run into a major roadblock in the state Senate after corrections officials said it could put prison guards at greater risk.
The House-passed bill (HB 1713) would require anyone convicted of a serious felony that carries up to 15 years in state prison to be present when the verdict is read and for sentencing unless the defendant has good cause for being absent and the judge agrees with that request.
Montgomery attended only the first day of jury selection in his trial for the second-degree murder of his daughter, Harmony, 5, but he was present, after being ordered by a judge, on May 9 when he was sentenced to 45 years in prison for the slaying and 11 additional years on related charges.
That sentence will be added to two consecutive 15- to 30-year prison sentences Montgomery is serving on unrelated weapons charges, meaning Montgomery will spend the rest of his life in prison.
Without debate late last week, the Senate, at the direction of Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry, voted to table the bill.
Earlier this month, Carson's committee had voted 3-2 to recommend passing the legislation, which the House adopted on a voice vote.
Despite the setback, the bill's sponsor, House Speaker Emeritus Steve Shurtleff, D-Penacook, said he was optimistic that a compromise could be worked out in the waning weeks of the 2024 legislative session.
"I have the utmost respect for Sen. Carson and presume that we can keep the lines of communication open so this can still go forward," Shurtleff said.
"Despite the concerns of correction officials, Adam Montgomery was able to be produced in court. It's clear that the public agrees that when someone is convicted of a serious crime, he or she should be there when the victim reads any statement in court."
Carson said while well-intentioned, however, the bill was not ready for prime time. She said it should stay on the shelf and quietly die in the Senate at the close of the 2024 session.
"We just heard from a lot of the stakeholders that this could pose real serious consequences behind the walls in prison," Carson said.
"The fact that Adam Montgomery was present for his sentencing was good news, but if we want to address this as a formal policy, we need to hear more from the professionals next year."
Assistant Corrections Commissioner Paul Raymond had told Carson's committee his agency objects to one section of the bill, which allowed a judge to order law enforcement officers to use "reasonable force" if the jailed defendant refused to comply.
The clause is in conflict with two state laws, one governing law enforcement use of reasonable force and the other applying to people with "special responsibilities," Raymond said.
Corrections officers could risk injury, the loss of their jobs and certifications or even face criminal charges if an inmate was badly hurt while being forcibly removed, he said.
"Cell extractions are one of the most dangerous parts of a corrections officer's job," Raymond said.
Both Rockingham County Jail Superintendent Jason Henry and his Belknap County counterpart, Michelle Wetherbee, also testified against the bill, issuing the same warnings.
Shurtleff said he had hoped there was enough time to work out language that could alleviate the concerns of correction officials.
"I'm not at all ready to give this one up," said Shurtleff, a retired deputy U.S. marshal.
Shurtleff pointed out that the federal court system requires those accused of crimes to be present at all times their cases are being considered.
Carson said she reviewed a possible amendment, but she decided it needed more work.
Opponents in the House tried in March to table the bill but failed on an non-recorded division vote, 256-112. Critics maintained that sometimes it's better for the family of crime victims for an offender not to be present in court.
