Opinion ID: 4514880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Offenses Immunized by RSA 318-B:28-b

Text: The defendant first argues that the statutory immunity afforded by RSA 318-B:28-b applies to all crimes enumerated in RSA 318-B:2 with “possession” as an inherent element. He asserts that the statute is ambiguous, and the legislative history supports his argument that the legislature intended to bring within the statute’s scope all crimes with the actus reus of possession, including the offense of possession with intent to sell a controlled drug. We disagree. The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law, and we therefore review a trial court’s interpretation of a statute de novo. State v. Mfataneza, 172 N.H. 166, 169 (2019). When interpreting a statute, we look first to the statutory language and, if possible, construe that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning, in the context of the entire statutory scheme. Id. We neither ignore the statute’s language nor add words that the legislature did not include. Id. We are the final arbiters of the legislature’s intent as expressed in the words of the statute. Id. Only when the statutory language is ambiguous do we look to the legislative history to aid in our interpretation. See State v. Lathrop, 164 N.H. 468, 470 (2012). Further, we construe provisions of the Criminal Code “according to the fair import of their terms and to promote justice.” RSA 625:3, :7 (2016). In 2015, the legislature added the “Immunity from Liability” statute to the Controlled Drug Act. RSA 318-B:28-b; see Laws 2015, 218:2. As relevant here, the statute protects a person who “is experiencing a drug overdose” and “is the subject of a good faith request for medical assistance.” RSA 318-B:28-b, III. The statute prohibits such a person from being “arrested, prosecuted, or convicted for possessing, or having under his or her control, a controlled drug in violation of RSA 318-B:2, if the evidence for the charge was gained as a proximate result of the request for medical assistance.” Id. RSA 318-B:2, I, makes it unlawful for a person to, among other things, “manufacture, possess, have under his control, sell, purchase, prescribe, administer, or transport or possess with intent to sell . . . any controlled drug.”2 (Emphases added.) The language in RSA 318-B:2, I, indicates that 2 Other parts of RSA 318-B:2 make it unlawful for a person to commit other offenses with possession as an actus reus. For example, RSA 318-B:2, II, makes it unlawful for a person to 4 “possess,” “have under his control,” and “possess with intent to sell” are distinct offenses. See Marcotte v. Timberlane/Hampstead School Dist., 143 N.H. 331, 338-39 (1999) (noting that commas between enumerated elements and before the conjunction “and” generally indicate discrete elements); see also State v. Stiles, 128 N.H. 81, 88 (1986) (treating possession of a controlled drug and possession with intent to sell a controlled drug as discrete offenses). The immunity statute explicitly references two offenses found in RSA 318-B:2: “possessing” and “having under his or her control.” RSA 318-B:28-b, II, III. The alignment between the two offenses listed in the immunity statute and their enumeration as discrete offenses in RSA 318-B:2, I, demonstrate that the legislature intended the immunity’s scope to encompass only the offenses of “possessing” and “having under his or her control.” Thus, although possession is a component of the offense of possession with intent to sell, the statutory language is not ambiguous and does not support the defendant’s broad reading that would extend the immunity to that offense. See Johnson v. City of Laconia, 141 N.H. 379, 380 (1996) (refusing to read “parking lots” into statutory language that explicitly and unambiguously immunizes municipalities from liability for injuries sustained on “public highways, bridges, or sidewalks,” despite acknowledging that parking lots and the enumerated areas may be “functionally related”). If the legislature desired the immunity to apply to other offenses involving possession, it would have explicitly listed them in the statute. We will not add an offense to the statute that the legislature did not include. See id. Because the statutory language is unambiguous, we need not look to the legislative history to aid in our interpretation. Accordingly, we conclude that the immunity statute does not extend to the offense of possession with intent to sell a controlled drug. We recognize, from the immunity statute’s language, a legislative intent to encourage those experiencing, or witnessing someone experiencing, an overdose to request medical assistance in order to save the lives of overdose victims. The defendant argues that our interpretation frustrates this intent because individuals, unsure of whether the State will charge them with an offense to which the immunity statute applies, will be discouraged from calling for medical assistance during an overdose. As the defendant acknowledges, however, the statute’s language does not indicate an intent to preclude all law enforcement pursuit of possible charges stemming from an overdose in favor of encouraging calls for medical assistance. If such were the case, the legislature would have provided blanket immunity from arrest, prosecution, and conviction for any criminal charges resulting from a good faith request for medical assistance during an overdose. Instead, the legislature immunized two discrete offenses, as discussed above, and the statute expressly provides that it should not be construed to “possess with intent to deliver . . . drug paraphernalia” under certain conditions. 5 limit: (a) “the admissibility of evidence in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a crime involving a person who is not protected as provided in paragraphs II or III”; (b) “the lawful seizure of any evidence or contraband”; or (c) “the authority of a law enforcement officer to detain . . . a person as part of a criminal investigation, or to arrest a person for an offense not protected by the provisions of paragraphs II or III.” RSA 318-B:28-b, IV. Thus, the statutory language balances the legislative goal to encourage calls for medical assistance with law enforcement interests in investigating other crimes by immunizing certain offenses while allowing others to be investigated and prosecuted. Our interpretation accords with the balance struck by the legislature.