New Hampshire Revised Statutes

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 625:8 (2026)

Limitations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NH-GCgc.nh.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    625:8 Limitations. –
I. Except as otherwise provided in this section, prosecutions are subject to the following periods of limitations:
(a) For a class A felony, 6 years;
(b) For a class B felony, 6 years;
(c) For a misdemeanor, one year;
(d) For a violation, 3 months.
(e) For an offense defined by RSA 282-A, 6 years.
(f) For an offense defined in RSA 638:1, III-a, 2 years.
II. Murder may be prosecuted at any time.
II-a. [Repealed.]
III. If the period prescribed in paragraph I has expired, a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced:
(a) Within one year after its discovery by an aggrieved party or by a person who has a duty to represent such person and who is himself not a party to the offense for a theft where possession of the property was lawfully obtained and subsequently misappropriated or for any offense, a material element of which is either fraud or a breach of fiduciary duty.
(b) For any offense based upon misconduct in office by a public servant, at any time when the defendant is in public office or within 2 years thereafter.
(c) For any offense under RSA 208, RSA 210, or RSA 215, within 3 years thereafter.
(d) For any offense under RSA 632-A or for an offense under RSA 639:2, where the victim was under 18 years of age when the alleged offense occurred, within 22 years of the victim's eighteenth birthday.
(e) For any offense where destruction or falsification of evidence, witness tampering, or other unlawful conduct delayed discovery of the offense, within one year of the discovery of the offense.
(f) For any offense under RSA 153:24 and RSA 153:5, the state fire code, within one year of its discovery.
(g) For any offense under RSA 641:1 through 641:7, if committed with the purpose to assist in a murder, to conceal a murder, or to conceal or hinder the investigation or apprehension of an individual responsible for murder, at any time.
(h) For any violation-level offense involving a motor vehicle accident resulting in death or serious bodily injury, within 6 months of the accident.
(i) For any offense under RSA 633:7, within 20 years, except where the victim was under 18 years of age when the alleged offense occurred, in which case within 20 years of the victim's eighteenth birthday.
IV. Time begins to run on the day after all elements of an offense have occurred or, in the case of an offense comprised of a continuous course of conduct, on the day after that conduct or the defendant's complicity therein terminates.
V. A prosecution is commenced on the day when a warrant or other process is issued, an indictment returned, or an information is filed, whichever is the earliest.
VI. The period of limitations does not run:
(a) During any time when the accused is continuously absent from the state or has no reasonably ascertained place of abode or work within this state; or
(b) During any time when a prosecution is pending against the accused in this state based on the same conduct.

Source. 1971, 518:1. 1973, 370:45. 1989, 97:1. 1990, 153:2; 213:2. 1993, 215:3. 2000, 173:1. 2003, 265:3. 2007, 183:1. 2009, 100:1. 2012, 208:1. 2014, 257:4, eff. Oct. 23, 2014. 2019, 281:2, eff. Sept. 17, 2019.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: State of New Hampshire v. Jeffrey Maxfield, 117 A.3d 704 (N.H. 2015).
State of New Hampshire v. Jeffrey Maxfield, 117 A.3d 704 (N.H. 2015). · cites it 48× “See RSA 625:8, I(c) (Supp. 2014). On December 5, 2013, the trial court granted the defendant’s second motion to dismiss.”
State v. Martin, 643 A.2d 946 (N.H. 1994). · cites it 7× “Before trial, the defendant moved to dismiss all eight indictments, arguing that the applicable six-year statute of limitations, RSA 625:8,1 (1986), had expired, and that retrospective application of the current statute of limitations, RSA 625:8, III(d) (Supp.”
Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 45-1-206(3) (2002); N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 625:8(VI)(b) (2002); N.”
State v. Sampson, 413 A.2d 590 (N.H. 1980). · cites it 4× “Relying on this *254 interpretation of the law, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictments on the ground that the statute of limitations applicable to misdemeanors had long since run.”
State v. Weeks, 635 A.2d 439 (N.H. 1993). · cites it 4× “In its objection to the defendant’s motion, the State relied on RSA 625:8, 111(a) (1986). RSA 625:8, III provides in pertinent part: “If the period prescribed in paragraph I [six years in this case] has expired, a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced: (a) Within one year…”
State v. Hamel, 643 A.2d 953 (N.H. 1994). · cites it 3× “RSA 625:8 (1986); see also RSA 632-A:7 (1986).”
State v. Kulikowski, 564 A.2d 439 (N.H. 1989). · cites it 4× “The defendant further argued that the indictments were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, RSA 625:8, because they relied on threats which occurred more than six years prior to the defendant’s arrest.”
State v. Amerigas Propane LP, Inc., 769 A.2d 401 (N.H. 2001). · cites it 5× “See RSA 625:8,1(c) (Supp. 2000). Because we reverse on this ground, we do not reach the defendant’s other arguments.”
State v. Jeremy M. Fiske, 171 A.3d 1234 (N.H. 2017). “See RSA 625:8, I(a) (2016). "To prevail upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have…”
John Farrelly v. City of Concord & A, 130 A.3d 548 (N.H. 2015). “1 Cf RSA 625:8, IV (2007) (providing that “in the case of an offense comprised of a continuous course of conduct,” the limitations period begins to run “on the day after that conduct or the defendant’s complicity therein terminates”).”
In Re Jones, 2009 VT 113 (Vt. 2009). “277, § 63 , N.H. Rev. Stat. § 625:8, N.Y. Crim. Pro. Law § 30.”
Appeal of Plantier, 494 A.2d 270 (N.H. 1985). “See RSA 508:4; RSA 625:8,1. “Due process under our constitutional republic has, as a primary consideration, the notion that no matter how rich or how poor, all of our citizens are entitled to fundamental fairness” when the government seeks to take action that will deprive them…”
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 625:8(VI)(b): 1 case
Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). “§ 45-1-206(3) (2002); N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 625:8(VI)(b) (2002); N.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.