New Hampshire Revised Statutes
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 627:3 (2026)
Competing Harms
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NH-GCgc.nh.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
627:3 Competing Harms. –
I. Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm to himself or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense charged. The desirability and urgency of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining to the morality and advisability of such statute, either in its general or particular application.
II. When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the circumstances requiring a choice of harms or in appraising the necessity of his conduct, the justification provided in paragraph I does not apply in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish criminal liability.
I. Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm to himself or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense charged. The desirability and urgency of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining to the morality and advisability of such statute, either in its general or particular application.
II. When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the circumstances requiring a choice of harms or in appraising the necessity of his conduct, the justification provided in paragraph I does not apply in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish criminal liability.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: State v. Dorsey, 395 A.2d 855 (N.H. 1978).
State v. Dorsey, 395 A.2d 855 (N.H. 1978). “The issue we decide in this criminal trespass case is whether the trial court erred in ruling that the statutory defense of competing harms, RSA 627:3, is not available to one charged with criminal trespass for occupying the construction site of a nuclear power plant.”
State v. L'Heureux, 846 A.2d 1193 (N.H. 2004). “See RSA 627:3 (1996). We vacate and remand. The following facts were adduced at trial.”
State v. Weitzman, 427 A.2d 3 (N.H. 1981). “Before trial, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, a motion to disqualify the jury pool on the grounds that blacks and persons under thirty years of age had been systematically excluded, a motion to conduct voir dire and/or propound specific…”
State v. O'Brien, 567 A.2d 582 (N.H. 1989). “O’Brien claims that the trial court erred in ruling that the defense of competing harms, codified at RSA 627:3, was unavailable to him as a matter of law.”
State v. Koski, 411 A.2d 1122 (N.H. 1980). “The defendant next argues that the charge and ruling by the court that a defense of competing harms under RSA 627:3 was not available constituted a denial of due process.”
State v. Bernard, 680 A.2d 609 (N.H. 1996). “See RSA 627:3 (1986). We reverse and remand. The following facts are not in dispute for purposes of this appeal.”
State v. Dupuy, 395 A.2d 851 (N.H. 1978). “Defendant further seeks review of the trial court’s ruling that she could not avail herself of the defense of competing harms, RSA 627:3. She also asks this court to find that the sentence imposed by the trial court is unduly harsh and constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Nadeau, 920 A.2d 452 (Me. 2007). “[¶ 16] Thus, although the four elements of the Maine competing harms justification as described in our case law are not always clearly articulated as four elements, they are basically consistent with the requirements in other jurisdictions. C. The Analysis Applied to the Facts…”
State v. Fee, 489 A.2d 606 (N.H. 1985). “At his trial for DWI, the defendant sought to raise the defense of competing harms pursuant to RSA 627:3. He argued that he believed it necessary that he, as the only person able to identify immediately any missing inventory, arrive at the pharmacy as quickly as possible in…”
State v. Lavoie, 880 A.2d 432 (N.H. 2005). “On October 16, 2003, six days before trial, the defendant responded with a notice under Rule 101 of her intent to pursue one of two statutory defenses at trial: competing harms, RSA 627:3 (1996), or, in the alternative, self-defense, RSA 627:4(II)(c) (1996).”
State v. Patterson, 2025 Ohio 280 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “275; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 627:3 through 627:9; N.”
State v. Gorham, 412 A.2d 1017 (N.H. 1980). “See RSA 627:3. The defendant argues that this instruction should never have been given because by its own terms it does not apply to cases in which recklessness is an element.”
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.