N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. » N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. / Title lxii / Chapter 627
New Hampshire Revised Statutes

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 627:7 (2024)

Use of Force in Defense of Premises

✓ 2024 N.H. RSA (Justia copy): later sessions are not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NH-GCgc.nh.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    627:7 Use of Force in Defense of Premises. – A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon is justified in using non-deadly force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other in or upon such premises, but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4 or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson.

Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: State v. Balliro, 959 A.2d 212 (N.H. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Balliro, 959 A.2d 212 (N.H. 2008). · cites it 16× “” See RSA 627:7 (2007). We affirm. The jury could have found the following relevant facts.”
State v. West, 113 A.3d 726 (N.H. 2015). · cites it 10× “During trial, the defendant objected to the trial court’s proposed jury instruction on the defense of premises, RSA 627:7 (2007). The trial court overruled the defendant’s objection.”
State v. Bird, 8 A.3d 146 (N.H. 2010). · cites it 4× “Defendant’s Claim of Defense of Premises The defendant next contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to set aside the verdict on the grounds that the State failed to rebut his claim of defense of premises under RSA 627:7 (2007). Specifically, he asserts that…”
John Farrelly v. City of Concord & A, 130 A.3d 548 (N.H. 2015). “465 (2015), we suggested that the jury be given the following instruction on the issue of whether a person “reasonably believes it necessary” to use non-deadly force under RSA 627:7 (2007): Thus, to find that the defendant was justified in using force, you must first find that…”
State v. Smith, 455 A.2d 1041 (N.H. 1983). “See RSA 627:7. The defendant claims that such lawful conduct could result in adequate provocation under the manslaughter statute, RSA 630:2 (Supp.”
State v. Arillo, 441 A.2d 1163 (N.H. 1982). · cites it 2× “He relies on RSA 627:7, which states that one “in possession .”
State v. Hast, 584 A.2d 175 (N.H. 1990). “Another request covered the justification of defense of the premises, as provided in RSA 627:7. The court’s charge did not include either of these requested instructions.”
Brandon Velez, Plaintiff v. Rachael Eutzy, Erik Slocum, Casey Seigle, & The City of Manchester, N.H., Defendants, 2025 DNH 061 (D.N.H. 2025). “That statute provides that: A person who uses force in self-protection or in the protection of other persons pursuant to RSA 627:4, in the protection of premises and property pursuant to RSA 627:7 and 627:8, in law enforcement pursuant to RSA 627:5, or in the care or welfare of…”
State of New Hampshire v. Bryan Clickner, No. 2018-0682 (N.H. Sept. 12, 2019). “465, 470-71 (2017) (ruling that the trial court’s jury instructions correctly explained “the requirement in RSA 627:7 that one using force must reasonably believe the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate a criminal trespass”).”
Velez v. Eutzy, No. 1:23-cv-00044 (D.N.H. May 14, 2025). “That statute provides that: A person who uses force in self-protection or in the protection of other persons pursuant to RSA 627:4, in the protection of premises and property pursuant to RSA 627:7 and 627:8, in law enforcement pursuant to RSA 627:5, or in the care or welfare of…”
State of New Hampshire v. Alain Lanciaux, No. 2014-0624 (N.H. Aug. 10, 2015). “See RSA 631:2-a, I (b) (2007). The trial court determined that the defendant had presented sufficient evidence at trial to support both the defense of another, and defense of premises instructions, see RSA 627:7 (2007).”
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.