In New Hampshire, the concept of restitution is governed by RSA 21-M:17, which outlines the duties of the Division of State Police. Specifically, this statute addresses the restitutionary obligations of individuals convicted of certain offenses. When a person is convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor under RSA 631:2 (Assault), RSA 631:3 (Simple Assault), or RSA 631:4 (Criminal Threatening), the court is mandated to order restitution to the victim for actual damages. The scope of “actual damages” in New Hampshire restitution law is generally understood to encompass economic losses directly resulting from the criminal act. This includes, but is not limited to, medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and costs associated with counseling or therapy directly related to the offense. It is crucial to note that restitution in New Hampshire is intended to compensate victims for quantifiable economic harm and does not typically extend to non-economic damages such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, or punitive damages. The court’s order for restitution must be based on the evidence presented regarding these quantifiable losses. The statute emphasizes that restitution is a part of the sentence and is ordered to make the victim whole for their provable financial losses stemming from the crime.

In New Hampshire, restitution orders are a critical component of the criminal justice system, aimed at compensating victims for losses incurred due to a crime. RSA 21-M:18, I outlines the authority of the Division of State Police to enforce restitution orders. This statute specifically grants the Division the power to take appropriate action to collect restitution when a court has ordered it. The concept of restitution is rooted in the principle of making the victim whole, and its enforcement is a judicial and administrative responsibility. When a defendant fails to comply with a restitution order, various enforcement mechanisms can be employed by the state, including but not limited to wage garnishment, liens on property, or even revocation of probation or parole, depending on the specific circumstances and the terms of the original court order. The Division of State Police, as an arm of law enforcement, plays a role in the practical application of these enforcement powers, ensuring that the court’s directive to compensate victims is carried out. Therefore, the ability of the Division of State Police to enforce restitution orders is a direct statutory grant of authority within New Hampshire law.

New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 21-M:23, outlines the powers and duties of the Division of State Police, including its role in the collection and distribution of restitution. When a court orders restitution in a criminal case, the court clerk is typically responsible for issuing a restitution order. This order is then forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement agency for enforcement. In New Hampshire, the State Police are often involved in the collection of these ordered payments. The process involves the court forwarding the order to the Department of Safety, which then assigns it to the State Police for collection efforts. The State Police then have a statutory responsibility to pursue the collection of these funds, acting as an agent for the victim to ensure the restitution is paid. This process is designed to streamline the recovery of financial losses incurred by victims of crime, ensuring that the court’s orders are effectively carried out. The fundamental principle is that the court’s judgment regarding restitution is a debt owed by the offender to the victim, and the State Police are empowered to facilitate the recovery of that debt.

In New Hampshire, restitution is a crucial component of criminal sentencing, aiming to compensate victims for losses incurred due to a crime. The relevant statutory framework, primarily found in New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) Chapter 651, specifically RSA 651:16-a, outlines the court’s authority to order restitution. This statute empowers the court to order a defendant to make restitution to the victim for pecuniary damages resulting from the crime. Pecuniary damages are defined broadly to include economic losses, such as medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and other quantifiable financial harms. The court considers the nature of the offense, the defendant’s ability to pay, and the victim’s losses when determining the amount and terms of restitution. Importantly, restitution orders are not punitive; they are compensatory. The law emphasizes that restitution should be ordered in an amount that the defendant is reasonably able to pay, considering their income, earning capacity, and financial resources. This principle ensures that restitution serves its intended purpose without unduly burdening the defendant beyond their means. The court may also consider the victim’s own contribution to their losses, though this is typically a secondary consideration. The restitution order is a judgment of the court and can be enforced like any other civil judgment. The focus remains on making the victim whole for the direct financial impact of the criminal conduct.

New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 21-M:19, outlines the powers and duties of the Department of Safety, including its role in administering victim compensation programs. While RSA 651:16-b addresses restitution, the primary mechanism for victims to recover losses directly related to criminal conduct, the question probes the scope of what constitutes recoverable restitution under New Hampshire law, particularly when considering intangible losses. New Hampshire’s restitution statute, RSA 651:16-b, defines restitution as “money or services of a kind and in an amount which will compensate the victim for actual loss suffered by the victim as a result of the defendant’s criminal conduct.” The statute emphasizes “actual loss.” This generally includes economic losses such as medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and funeral expenses. However, it typically does not extend to non-economic damages like pain and suffering, emotional distress, or loss of consortium, as these are generally addressed through civil claims rather than criminal restitution. The rationale is that criminal restitution is intended to make the victim whole regarding direct financial impacts of the crime, not to compensate for the broader emotional or psychological toll. Therefore, while the emotional distress experienced by the victim’s family due to the crime is a significant consequence, it does not fall within the statutory definition of “actual loss” recoverable through criminal restitution in New Hampshire.

In New Hampshire, the determination of restitution for a victim of a crime is governed by RSA 21-M:23, which outlines the duties of the Victim and Witness Assistance Program. This program is responsible for informing victims of their rights, including the right to restitution. Restitution orders are typically made by the court as part of a sentence. The scope of restitution can encompass various losses directly resulting from the criminal conduct. This includes economic losses such as medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage or loss. It can also extend to the cost of counseling services if the victim requires them due to the trauma of the crime. The law emphasizes that restitution should be ordered in an amount that the defendant has the ability to pay. The court considers the defendant’s financial resources and earning capacity when setting the restitution amount. Furthermore, restitution is intended to compensate the victim for actual losses, not to punish the defendant beyond the sentence imposed. The Victim and Witness Assistance Program plays a crucial role in documenting these losses and presenting them to the court for inclusion in the restitution order. The objective is to make the victim whole again to the extent possible through financial compensation from the offender.

In New Hampshire, the framework for restitution is primarily governed by RSA 651:16 and related statutes. These laws establish that restitution is a mandatory component of sentencing for most offenses, aimed at compensating victims for losses incurred due to the criminal conduct. The determination of restitution involves assessing the actual damages suffered by the victim, which can encompass economic losses such as medical expenses, property damage, lost wages, and counseling costs. The court has the authority to order restitution in an amount it deems just and reasonable, considering the defendant’s ability to pay. Importantly, restitution orders are distinct from civil judgments, though they serve a similar compensatory purpose. The statute specifies that restitution is intended to cover actual losses, not punitive damages or pain and suffering. When a victim has insurance, the court may reduce the restitution amount by the amount paid by the insurer, but only if the victim is not required to repay the insurer from any restitution received, thereby preventing double recovery for the victim. This principle is crucial in preventing a windfall for the victim. The court will consider the financial resources of the defendant, the present value of restitution, and the burden of repayment on the defendant and their dependents when setting the payment schedule. The goal is to ensure that victims are made whole to the extent possible while also being practical regarding the defendant’s capacity.

New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 651:39, outlines the conditions under which restitution can be ordered in criminal cases. This statute emphasizes that restitution should be ordered to compensate victims for losses directly resulting from the defendant’s criminal conduct. The law requires the court to consider the financial resources of the defendant and the needs of the victim. When a victim’s losses are not fully ascertainable at the time of sentencing, the court may order restitution for a portion of the losses and retain jurisdiction to amend the order later, or it may defer the determination of the amount until a later date. However, the statute also places a limitation on the total amount of restitution that can be ordered. For a misdemeanor, the maximum restitution amount is capped at \$5,000, and for a felony, the maximum is \$10,000. In this scenario, the victim, Ms. Albright, suffered a total loss of \$12,000 due to Mr. Davies’s criminal actions. Mr. Davies was convicted of a felony offense. Therefore, the maximum restitution the court can order for this felony conviction is \$10,000, even though the actual loss exceeded this amount. The court’s discretion is bound by this statutory maximum for felony offenses.

New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 21-J:35-a, addresses the restitutionary obligations of individuals convicted of certain offenses. This statute outlines the framework for courts to order restitution to victims for losses incurred as a direct result of the defendant’s criminal conduct. The calculation of restitution is not a fixed mathematical formula but rather an assessment of actual damages. For instance, if a defendant is convicted of criminal mischief for intentionally damaging a victim’s property, the court would determine the restitution amount by considering the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged property. This could involve obtaining repair estimates, invoices for replacement items, or other documented proof of the victim’s financial loss. The law emphasizes that restitution should compensate the victim for their economic losses, such as medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, or funeral expenses, directly attributable to the offense. It is crucial to understand that restitution is a component of sentencing, designed to make the victim whole financially, and is distinct from fines or other punitive measures. The court must consider the defendant’s ability to pay when determining the restitution schedule, but the primary focus remains on the victim’s actual losses.

In New Hampshire, restitution is a critical component of sentencing, aiming to compensate victims for losses incurred due to a crime. RSA 21-J:63, which pertains to victim compensation and restitution, outlines the framework. Specifically, when a court orders restitution, it must consider the victim’s actual losses. This includes not only direct financial damages but also other quantifiable harm. For instance, in cases involving property damage, the cost of repair or replacement, based on fair market value at the time of the offense, is typically included. If the victim incurred additional expenses directly attributable to the criminal act, such as costs for temporary housing following a burglary or medical co-pays after an assault, these are also generally recoverable. The principle is to make the victim whole to the extent possible through the offender’s payment. The court has the discretion to determine the amount and method of payment, often taking into account the offender’s ability to pay. However, the foundational principle remains that the restitution order should accurately reflect the victim’s proven losses stemming from the offense. In this scenario, the victim’s loss of income due to attending court proceedings, provided it’s a direct and demonstrable consequence of the crime and not voluntary absence, is a compensable economic loss under New Hampshire restitution statutes. This aligns with the broader goal of restitution to address the tangible harm suffered by victims.

New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 651:63, outlines the requirements for restitution orders. This statute mandates that a court shall order restitution when a victim has suffered a loss due to the defendant’s criminal conduct. The order must specify the amount of restitution, the manner of payment, and the recipient. Crucially, the law emphasizes that restitution is intended to compensate the victim for actual losses. This includes economic damages such as medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and other quantifiable financial harm directly attributable to the offense. It does not, however, extend to pain and suffering, emotional distress, or punitive damages, which are typically addressed through civil litigation. In the scenario presented, the court’s determination of restitution must be grounded in the demonstrable financial impact on the victim. The focus is on making the victim whole from an economic standpoint, not on punishing the offender beyond the sentence or compensating for intangible harms. Therefore, the restitution order should be limited to the documented costs incurred by the victim directly as a result of the criminal act.

In New Hampshire, the restitutionary obligations of a convicted offender are primarily governed by RSA 651:62 through RSA 651:67. These statutes outline the framework for ordering restitution and its enforcement. Specifically, RSA 651:63 delineates the types of losses that can be compensated through restitution, which include economic losses resulting from the offense, such as medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and funeral expenses. It also permits compensation for expenses incurred by victims for counseling or therapy related to the offense. The law emphasizes that restitution should be ordered whenever a victim has suffered a loss. The amount of restitution is to be determined by the court based on the victim’s losses, considering evidence presented. The court has the discretion to order restitution as a condition of probation or parole, or as a standalone sentence. Furthermore, restitution orders are generally enforceable as civil judgments. The intent is to make victims whole for their losses directly attributable to the criminal conduct. The focus is on actual economic harm, not on punitive damages or compensation for emotional distress beyond what is directly tied to quantifiable economic losses like therapy costs. The scope is therefore limited to demonstrable financial impact stemming from the criminal act.

In New Hampshire, restitution is a crucial component of criminal sentencing, aiming to compensate victims for losses incurred due to a crime. The New Hampshire statutes, particularly RSA 214:15, outline the principles and procedures for restitution. This statute emphasizes that restitution is to be ordered by the court and is intended to cover actual losses. Actual losses typically include economic damages directly resulting from the criminal conduct. This can encompass medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and other out-of-pocket costs. The court must consider the defendant’s ability to pay when determining the amount and schedule of restitution. The focus is on making the victim whole financially. It is important to distinguish restitution from civil damages, which may include pain and suffering or punitive damages. Restitution in criminal cases is limited to quantifiable economic losses directly attributable to the offense. For instance, if a defendant is convicted of simple assault resulting in a broken arm, restitution could cover the victim’s medical bills and any documented lost wages from being unable to work. However, it would not typically include compensation for emotional distress or pain endured by the victim, as those are generally addressed in separate civil actions. The court’s discretion is guided by the statutory framework to ensure fairness and proportionality.

In New Hampshire, the restitution statute, RSA 651:42, outlines the framework for ordering restitution in criminal cases. This statute mandates that the court shall order restitution to the victim for losses incurred as a direct result of the defendant’s crime. The scope of restitution is broad and can include economic damages such as medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and other out-of-pocket losses. Importantly, restitution is not limited to the exact amount of loss suffered by the victim but can encompass the full extent of the victim’s losses. The statute also specifies that restitution orders are a part of the sentence and are enforceable as such. The court’s discretion in determining the amount and method of payment is guided by the principle of making the victim whole. Furthermore, restitution can be ordered in addition to, or in lieu of, other penalties. The statute also addresses situations where the victim is deceased, allowing for restitution to be paid to the victim’s estate or to a victim’s family member. The focus is on compensating the victim for actual harm caused by the criminal conduct, distinguishing it from punitive damages. The restitution order is a civil judgment in favor of the victim.

In New Hampshire, restitution is a crucial component of criminal sentencing, aiming to compensate victims for losses incurred due to a crime. RSA 21-J:17, which deals with restitution, outlines the principles governing its application. The statute specifies that restitution may be ordered for actual damages, including medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage. It also permits restitution for the costs of therapy or counseling if the victim suffered emotional distress as a direct result of the offense. The court has discretion in determining the amount and method of restitution, considering the defendant’s ability to pay. However, the law is clear that restitution is intended to cover direct losses and not speculative or consequential damages that are not directly attributable to the criminal act. In the scenario presented, the victim’s lost future earning capacity due to a career change necessitated by the trauma of the assault, while a significant personal loss, is not typically considered a direct, quantifiable financial loss that falls within the purview of restitution under RSA 21-J:17 as it relates to actual damages. The statute focuses on losses that can be objectively determined and directly linked to the criminal conduct, such as medical bills or repair costs. While the victim’s emotional distress and subsequent career impact are severe, the law prioritizes tangible economic losses directly caused by the crime for restitutionary purposes. Therefore, the restitution order would likely exclude compensation for the victim’s reduced future earning potential stemming from a career change.

New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 651:62, outlines the framework for restitution orders. This statute emphasizes that restitution is intended to compensate victims for their losses resulting from a defendant’s criminal conduct. The law distinguishes between direct and indirect losses. Direct losses are those immediately and obviously attributable to the offense, such as medical bills for an assault victim or repair costs for damaged property in a vandalism case. Indirect losses, while still a consequence of the crime, may involve more complex causal links or be secondary in nature. Examples of indirect losses could include lost wages due to attending court proceedings, costs for therapy to address emotional distress, or the expense of replacing tools essential for a victim’s livelihood that were stolen during a burglary. The determination of what constitutes a compensable loss, whether direct or indirect, is made by the court, which must find a sufficient nexus between the defendant’s criminal act and the victim’s loss. The court’s discretion is guided by the principle that restitution should make the victim whole, to the extent possible, for damages directly and indirectly caused by the offense. The law also specifies that restitution cannot be ordered for losses that are purely speculative or not demonstrably linked to the criminal behavior. The focus remains on tangible economic losses, though the statute does not preclude consideration of certain documented non-economic impacts that have a clear financial component, such as the cost of professional counseling necessitated by the trauma of the crime.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s interpretation of RSA 651:39, concerning restitution for victims of crime, emphasizes that restitution is intended to compensate for actual losses directly resulting from the offense. In this scenario, the victim, Mr. Abernathy, suffered financial losses due to the vandalism of his property. The cost of repairing the damaged fence is a direct consequence of the defendant’s criminal act. Therefore, this expense is clearly recoverable as restitution. The lost rental income, however, is considered a consequential loss. While it stems from the criminal act, it is not as directly and immediately tied to the physical damage as the repair cost. New Hampshire law, as interpreted by its courts, generally requires a more direct causal link for consequential damages to be awarded as restitution. The court’s focus is on making the victim whole for the immediate harm caused by the offense, rather than compensating for all potential indirect financial repercussions that might be speculative or difficult to prove as solely attributable to the crime. The emotional distress claim, while a valid component of damages in some civil contexts, is not typically an element that can be recovered through criminal restitution proceedings in New Hampshire, as restitution is primarily focused on economic losses.

New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 651:16-a, outlines the framework for restitution orders in criminal cases. This statute emphasizes that restitution is intended to compensate victims for their losses resulting from the criminal conduct. The law mandates that a court shall order restitution when a victim has suffered a financial loss. The types of losses that can be recovered are broad and include property damage, medical expenses, lost wages, and other quantifiable economic harm. Crucially, the court must consider the defendant’s ability to pay when determining the amount and schedule of restitution payments. This consideration ensures that the restitution order is both fair to the victim and achievable for the offender. The law also allows for restitution to be made directly to the victim or through a state-administered victim compensation fund, which then seeks reimbursement from the offender. The purpose is not punitive in nature, but rather remedial, aiming to restore the victim to their pre-offense financial position as much as possible. The statute does not permit restitution for pain and suffering or other non-economic damages, which are typically addressed in civil proceedings.

In New Hampshire, the restitution process is governed by RSA 21-M:18 and related statutes. The core principle is to make victims whole for losses directly attributable to the offender’s criminal conduct. This includes economic losses such as medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage. When a court orders restitution, it must specify the amount and the manner of payment. The statute emphasizes that restitution is a mandatory part of sentencing for most offenses, ensuring that the financial burden of a crime is borne by the perpetrator. The court has discretion in determining the amount, but it must be supported by evidence presented during the proceedings. For instance, if a victim incurs unreimbursed medical bills due to an assault, those bills can be a component of restitution. Similarly, if a victim loses income because they were unable to work due to injuries sustained in the offense, those lost wages are compensable. The restitution order is a civil judgment enforceable by the state. The court will consider the offender’s ability to pay when setting the payment schedule, but the primary goal remains full compensation to the victim. It is crucial to distinguish between restitution and civil damages, as restitution is directly tied to the criminal conviction and is ordered within the criminal justice system.

New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 21-M:21, outlines the duties of the Department of Safety, including the administration of victim compensation programs. While this statute addresses the broader scope of victim services, the specific principles of restitution in criminal cases are primarily governed by RSA Chapter 637, particularly RSA 637:10 concerning restitution. This section establishes that a court may order restitution to be paid by an offender to a victim for pecuniary damages resulting from the offense. Pecuniary damages are defined as economic losses. In cases where an offender is convicted of a felony, such as aggravated assault under RSA 633:1, and the victim incurs documented medical expenses and lost wages directly attributable to the assault, the court has the authority to order the offender to reimburse the victim for these quantifiable losses. The statute does not mandate that restitution must cover all potential damages, but rather those that are a direct and ascertainable result of the criminal conduct. The court’s discretion in ordering restitution is guided by the principle of making the victim whole for their economic losses stemming from the crime.

In New Hampshire, the determination of restitution amounts is guided by statutory provisions that aim to compensate victims for losses directly resulting from a crime. RSA 651:63, II, outlines the types of losses that can be included in a restitution order. These losses typically encompass economic damages such as medical expenses, lost wages, property damage or loss, and counseling costs. The court must ensure that the restitution ordered is directly attributable to the defendant’s criminal conduct. For instance, if a defendant is convicted of assault, the victim’s medical bills related to the injuries sustained from that assault would be considered. However, damages not directly caused by the assault, such as lost income from a separate, unrelated job termination that occurred during the victim’s recovery period, would generally not be included unless a direct causal link can be established. The court’s role is to review evidence presented by the prosecution and the victim to establish the extent of these losses and ensure they are reasonable and necessary. The focus is on making the victim whole to the extent possible through financial compensation for quantifiable harm.

New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 651:62, outlines the scope of restitution. This statute defines restitution as any amount of money or property that a defendant is ordered to pay to a victim as a result of a criminal conviction. The law emphasizes that restitution is intended to compensate victims for their losses directly attributable to the criminal conduct. This includes economic losses such as medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage. Importantly, the statute also permits restitution for intangible losses, such as pain and suffering, if these are specifically ordered by the court and are directly related to the offense. The court has discretion in determining the amount and method of payment, considering the defendant’s ability to pay. However, the fundamental principle is to make the victim whole for the losses suffered due to the crime. The question tests the understanding of what constitutes compensable losses under New Hampshire’s restitution framework, particularly the inclusion of non-economic damages when specifically ordered by the court. The scenario presents a situation where a victim incurred expenses for counseling due to emotional distress caused by the defendant’s actions. This type of expense, if directly linked to the criminal conduct and ordered by the court, falls within the purview of restitution as compensation for intangible losses.

In New Hampshire, the determination of restitution for property damage in criminal cases is governed by RSA 651:60, which outlines the scope and limitations of such awards. This statute mandates that restitution shall be ordered for losses directly resulting from the offense. For property damage, this typically includes the cost of repair or, if irreparable, the fair market value of the property at the time of the offense. The statute also allows for the recovery of incidental expenses directly attributable to the damage, such as the cost of temporary replacement or professional assessment of the damage. However, it does not permit recovery for speculative losses, pain and suffering, or damages unrelated to the direct physical impact of the criminal act. In the scenario presented, the victim’s vehicle sustained significant damage. The repair estimate from a certified mechanic, totaling $4,500, represents the direct cost of restoring the property. Additionally, the towing fee of $250 is a direct and necessary expense incurred due to the damage, enabling the vehicle to be removed from the scene and taken for repair. The cost of a rental car for two weeks, amounting to $700, is also a recoverable incidental expense, as it addresses the period the victim was deprived of their vehicle due to the damage. Therefore, the total restitution amount is the sum of these directly related costs: $4,500 (repairs) + $250 (towing) + $700 (rental car) = $5,450. Damages for emotional distress or inconvenience, while potentially valid in civil claims, are generally not recoverable under New Hampshire’s criminal restitution statutes, which focus on economic losses directly tied to the criminal conduct.

The core principle of restitution in New Hampshire, as outlined in RSA 21-J:21 and related statutes, is to make victims whole for losses directly attributable to the criminal conduct. This includes economic damages such as medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage. In the case of a victim who is a sole proprietor and experiences a loss of income due to the offense, restitution for lost profits is permissible if it can be proven with reasonable certainty that the profits were directly caused by the criminal act and would have been earned but for the offense. The calculation involves determining the net profit the business would have generated during the period of incapacitation or disruption. For example, if a business owner, Mr. Aris Thorne, a sole proprietor of a small artisanal bakery in Concord, New Hampshire, was unable to operate his business for 30 days due to an assault, and his average daily net profit before the incident was $200, the potential restitution for lost profits would be calculated as: \(30 \text{ days} \times \$200/\text{day} = \$6,000\). This calculation is based on establishing a baseline of profitability and demonstrating a direct causal link between the criminal act and the cessation of business operations. The court will consider evidence such as past financial records, industry standards, and expert testimony to establish the reasonable certainty of these lost profits. It is crucial that the restitution order is specific to the actual, provable losses incurred by the victim and not speculative.

New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 651:16-a, governs restitution. This statute outlines the types of losses that can be recovered through restitution orders in criminal cases. The law permits restitution for economic losses suffered by victims as a direct result of the defendant’s criminal conduct. This includes, but is not limited to, expenses incurred for medical or psychiatric treatment, lost wages, and property damage or loss. It is crucial to understand that restitution is intended to compensate victims for quantifiable financial harm. Emotional distress, pain and suffering, or punitive damages are generally not recoverable through a criminal restitution order in New Hampshire. The focus is on making the victim whole financially for losses directly attributable to the offense. For example, if a victim incurred \( \$500 \) in unreimbursed medical bills due to an assault, this would be a direct economic loss eligible for restitution. However, if the victim also experienced significant emotional distress and sought therapy for that distress, the cost of therapy directly related to emotional suffering, not a physical injury, might be scrutinized more closely for its direct link to the criminal act as defined by the statute. The court determines the amount and method of restitution.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s interpretation of RSA 651:39, concerning restitution for victim losses, emphasizes the direct causal link between the offender’s criminal conduct and the victim’s quantifiable losses. In cases involving property damage, the primary measure of restitution is typically the actual cost of repair or replacement of the damaged property, not its depreciated value or the victim’s subjective valuation of its sentimental worth. For instance, if a vehicle is damaged, the restitution would generally be based on the reasonable cost to repair it to its pre-damage condition, or if irreparable, the fair market value of the vehicle immediately before the damage occurred. The statute also allows for restitution for other direct out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the victim as a result of the crime, such as medical bills, lost wages, or counseling services, provided these losses are directly attributable to the criminal act. The court’s approach aims to make the victim whole financially, restoring them to the position they were in prior to the offense, without unjustly enriching them or imposing punitive damages. The focus remains on compensating for actual, demonstrable harm.

In New Hampshire, the restitutionary obligations of a defendant are primarily governed by RSA 651:62-a. This statute outlines the framework for restitution orders, emphasizing that a victim is entitled to restitution for losses incurred as a direct result of the defendant’s criminal conduct. The scope of restitution is broad, encompassing economic losses such as medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and counseling costs. Crucially, the law also permits restitution for intangible losses like pain and suffering or emotional distress, provided these can be quantified and are directly attributable to the offense. The court’s discretion plays a significant role in determining the amount and method of restitution, but it must be based on the victim’s actual losses. The statute does not mandate that restitution be limited to items specifically listed in the sentencing order if other direct losses are later proven. Furthermore, the restitution order survives the defendant’s sentence and remains enforceable until fully satisfied. This comprehensive approach aims to make victims whole by compensating for all demonstrable harm caused by the criminal act.

In New Hampshire, the concept of restitution is governed by RSA 651:16-b, which outlines the court’s authority to order restitution for victims of crimes. This statute emphasizes that restitution should be ordered for pecuniary damages resulting directly from the criminal conduct. Pecuniary damages are quantifiable economic losses. When a victim incurs expenses for counseling due to emotional distress caused by a crime, these costs are generally considered recoverable as restitution, provided they are directly linked to the criminal act and can be substantiated with documentation, such as invoices or receipts from licensed professionals. The statute aims to make victims whole by compensating for demonstrable financial harm. The specific inclusion of counseling expenses as a compensable loss reflects the legislative intent to address not only tangible property damage but also the economic consequences of psychological trauma stemming from criminal behavior. This aligns with the broader purpose of restitution, which is to restore victims to their pre-crime financial position as much as possible, thereby acknowledging the multifaceted impact of criminal offenses. The key is the direct causal link between the crime and the incurred expense, and the ability to prove that expense.

In New Hampshire, restitution orders are a crucial component of criminal sentencing, aiming to compensate victims for losses incurred due to a crime. RSA 21-M:23, I outlines the authority of the department of safety to establish programs for victim assistance, which indirectly supports the principles of restitution. More directly, RSA 651:39, I, and subsequent subsections, govern the imposition and enforcement of restitution. This statute specifies that a court shall order restitution when a victim has suffered a financial loss as a direct result of the defendant’s criminal conduct. The scope of restitution can encompass a wide range of expenses, including medical bills, lost wages, property damage, and counseling services. It is important to note that restitution is distinct from civil damages, though it can overlap. The court determines the amount of restitution based on evidence presented, and the defendant is generally obligated to pay the full amount ordered, even if it exceeds the actual out-of-pocket expenses at the time of sentencing, provided it is directly attributable to the offense. The law prioritizes victim compensation, ensuring that those harmed by criminal acts are made whole to the greatest extent possible within the sentencing framework. The focus is on the direct causal link between the criminal act and the financial harm suffered by the victim.

In New Hampshire, restitution is a critical component of sentencing, aiming to compensate victims for losses incurred due to a crime. RSA 651:48, II outlines the court’s authority to order restitution. The law specifies that restitution can cover economic loss, which is defined as direct out-of-pocket losses, but it generally excludes intangible losses such as pain and suffering, or emotional distress. This exclusion is a fundamental principle in New Hampshire’s restitution framework, distinguishing it from civil damages. Therefore, when a court considers restitution for a victim who suffered a broken window and the theft of a valuable antique vase, the economic loss directly attributable to the stolen vase, such as its market value, would be compensable. However, the emotional distress experienced by the victim due to the violation of their home and the loss of a sentimental item, while significant, is not typically encompassed within the statutory definition of economic loss for restitution purposes under RSA 651:48, II. The focus remains on quantifiable financial harm directly resulting from the criminal act.