New Hampshire Revised Statutes
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 638:4 (2026)
Issuing Bad Checks
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NH-GCgc.nh.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
638:4 Issuing Bad Checks. –
I. A person is guilty of issuing a bad check if he issues or passes a check for the payment of money and payment is refused by the drawee, except in cases where a legal stop payment order has been issued or where the drawee refuses payment for any other reason through no fault of the person who issued or passed the check.
I-a. A person who issues or passes a bad check is subject to prosecution in the jurisdiction in which he issued or passed the check.
II. For the purposes of this section, as well as in any prosecution for theft committed by means of a bad check, a person who issues a check for which payment is refused by the drawee is presumed to know that such check would not be paid if he had no account with the drawee at the time of issue.
III. It is an affirmative defense that the actor paid the amount of the check, together with all costs and protest fees, to the person to whom it was due, within 14 days after having received notice that payment was refused. The actor's failure to make such payment within 14 days after receiving notice that payment was refused shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of paragraph I of this section.
IV. (a) Issuing a bad check is:
(1) A class A felony if:
(A) The face amount of the check exceeds $1,500; or
(B) The defendant has 2 or more prior convictions under this section, the present and prior convictions were based on offenses committed within a 12-month period, and the aggregate face amount of the checks underlying the present and prior convictions exceeds $1,500;
(2) A class B felony if:
(A) The face amount of the check exceeds $1,000 but is not more than $1,500; or
(B) The defendant has 2 or more prior convictions under this section, the present and prior convictions were based on offenses committed within a 12-month period, and the aggregate face amount of the checks underlying the present and prior convictions exceeds $1,000 but does not exceed $1,500;
(3) A class A misdemeanor if the face amount of the check does not exceed $1,000 and the actor has been convicted of an offense under this section within the previous 12 months; and
(4) A class B misdemeanor in all other cases.
(b) In any prosecution under subparagraph IV(a), the prosecutor shall prove that the person issued or passed the check knowing or believing that the check would not be paid by the drawee.
(c) Face amounts involved in the issuance of bad checks committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.
V. In addition to any other sentence which it imposes, the court shall, if restitution is authorized under RSA 651:63, order any person convicted of a violation of this section to make restitution to the person to whom the check was due. Such restitution shall include the amount of the check and may include all reasonable costs and protest fees.
VI. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, in any judicial proceeding under this section, a notarized or sworn statement by the bank official who is the keeper of records of the bank upon which the check was drawn shall be admissible as evidence at trial to prove the status or account balance of the person's account on the date the check was issued or passed. The admission of this statement shall eliminate the need for the keeper of records to personally appear and testify before the court.
(b) Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the person who issued the check for which payment was refused from securing the appearance of the keeper of the records before the court by subpoena or other legal process.
I. A person is guilty of issuing a bad check if he issues or passes a check for the payment of money and payment is refused by the drawee, except in cases where a legal stop payment order has been issued or where the drawee refuses payment for any other reason through no fault of the person who issued or passed the check.
I-a. A person who issues or passes a bad check is subject to prosecution in the jurisdiction in which he issued or passed the check.
II. For the purposes of this section, as well as in any prosecution for theft committed by means of a bad check, a person who issues a check for which payment is refused by the drawee is presumed to know that such check would not be paid if he had no account with the drawee at the time of issue.
III. It is an affirmative defense that the actor paid the amount of the check, together with all costs and protest fees, to the person to whom it was due, within 14 days after having received notice that payment was refused. The actor's failure to make such payment within 14 days after receiving notice that payment was refused shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of paragraph I of this section.
IV. (a) Issuing a bad check is:
(1) A class A felony if:
(A) The face amount of the check exceeds $1,500; or
(B) The defendant has 2 or more prior convictions under this section, the present and prior convictions were based on offenses committed within a 12-month period, and the aggregate face amount of the checks underlying the present and prior convictions exceeds $1,500;
(2) A class B felony if:
(A) The face amount of the check exceeds $1,000 but is not more than $1,500; or
(B) The defendant has 2 or more prior convictions under this section, the present and prior convictions were based on offenses committed within a 12-month period, and the aggregate face amount of the checks underlying the present and prior convictions exceeds $1,000 but does not exceed $1,500;
(3) A class A misdemeanor if the face amount of the check does not exceed $1,000 and the actor has been convicted of an offense under this section within the previous 12 months; and
(4) A class B misdemeanor in all other cases.
(b) In any prosecution under subparagraph IV(a), the prosecutor shall prove that the person issued or passed the check knowing or believing that the check would not be paid by the drawee.
(c) Face amounts involved in the issuance of bad checks committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.
V. In addition to any other sentence which it imposes, the court shall, if restitution is authorized under RSA 651:63, order any person convicted of a violation of this section to make restitution to the person to whom the check was due. Such restitution shall include the amount of the check and may include all reasonable costs and protest fees.
VI. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, in any judicial proceeding under this section, a notarized or sworn statement by the bank official who is the keeper of records of the bank upon which the check was drawn shall be admissible as evidence at trial to prove the status or account balance of the person's account on the date the check was issued or passed. The admission of this statement shall eliminate the need for the keeper of records to personally appear and testify before the court.
(b) Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the person who issued the check for which payment was refused from securing the appearance of the keeper of the records before the court by subpoena or other legal process.
Source. 1971, 518:1. 1979, 265:1. 1983, 378:1, 2. 1985, 163:1. 1989, 269:1-4. 1990, 153:1. 1993, 215:1, 2. 2010, 239:4, eff. July 1, 2010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1984–2018 · leading case: State v. Stewart, 921 A.2d 933 (N.H. 2007).
State v. Stewart, 921 A.2d 933 (N.H. 2007). “See RSA 638:4, I, IV(a)(l) (1996). We reverse and remand.”
State v. Smith, 681 A.2d 1215 (N.H. 1996). “See RSA 638:4 (1986 & Supp. 1993) (amended 1993).”
Hartgers v. Town of Plaistow, 681 A.2d 82 (N.H. 1996). “Bruce Hartgers, sued the defendants, the Town of Plaistow and the Plaistow Police Department, alleging that his arrest for the offense of issuing a bad check under RSA 638:4 (1986 & Supp. 1990) violated his rights under the first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments to the…”
State v. Fitanides, 683 A.2d 534 (N.H. 1996). “The defendant, Philip Fitanides, appeals his conviction of issuing a bad check, see RSA 638:4 (1996), after a jury trial in Superior Court {Gray, J.”
State v. Hermsdorf, 605 A.2d 1045 (N.H. 1992). “, RSA 638:4, IV(a)(2) (Supp. 1991) (issuing bad checks); RSA 638:5, 111(a)(2) (fraudulent use of credit card); RSA 638:7, 111(a)(2) (commercial bribery); RSA 638:8,11(a)(1) (sports bribery, $1000 threshold), while others, including the one at issue here, are silent on…”
State v. Martina, 600 A.2d 132 (N.H. 1991). “Sestito, did not appear that afternoon on behalf of his client, who had been charged with issuing a bad check, RSA 638:4. Upon learning that the parties hoped to resolve this matter by negotiated plea, an attempt was made to secure the contemnor’s presence at trial.”
State v. Sheedy, 474 A.2d 1042 (N.H. 1984). “of these facts; that the Hooksett police, in turn, notified the defendant of these facts; that the defendant made no attempt to provide sufficient funds for the check; that these facts provide a reasonable basis for believing that at the time of the making of the check, there…”
Leavitt v. Hamelin, 495 A.2d 1286 (N.H. 1985). “RSA chapter 544-A is the civil counterpart to RSA 638:4 (Supp. 1983), which prescribes criminal penalties for the issuing of bad checks.”
State v. Schachter, 577 A.2d 1222 (N.H. 1990). “Later that year the defendant was indicted for having ob *440 tained money by deception from four banks other than Sugar River, RSA 637:4, and for having issued bad checks drawn on his Sugar River bank account, RSA 638:4, but none of the indictments alleged that Sugar River had…”
Milone v. New Hampshire (In Re Milone), 73 B.R. 452 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1987). “RSA 638:4, “Issuing Bad Checks”, which provides in pertinent part as follows: I.”
State v. Maynard, 629 A.2d 1345 (N.H. 1993). “The defendant, Richard Maynard, was convicted of two counts of issuing bad checks, contrary to RSA 638:4 (1986 & Supp. 1989) (amended 1990) after a jury trial in the Superior Court (Mohl, J.”
State v. Brittany Boggs, 191 A.3d 535 (N.H. 2018). “See RSA 638:4, I (2016). She first contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict her of either felony.”
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.