NASHUA, NH — A woman from Nashua with a 15 year history of crime and active drug dealing, possession, and other charges was arrested recently by police accused of participating in a burglary on Temple Street.

On April 19, police were sent to an apartment on Temple Street near Temple Place for a report of an armed robbery and burglary. Police spoke to the victim, who said several people known to her “forced their way into her apartment, threatened her with a box cutter, and assaulted her,” according to Sgt. John Cinelli, the public information officer and communications division supervisor of the Nashua Police Department.

Detectives began working on the case. After eyeing surveillance video and interviewing witnesses and suspects, Kailey Rowley, 31, of Temple Street, a couple of blocks away from the incident, was identified as “an involved participant,” Cinelli said. A warrant was issued for her arrest on a criminal liability charge. She was arrested on April 25 and held without bail.

“At the time of Rowley’s arrest,” Cinelli said, “she had several other outstanding arrest warrants,” including theft, sale of a controlled drug, and falsifying physical evidence charges, all felonies.

Rowley was arraigned in Nashua District Court on April 26.

According to superior court records and reports on Patch, Rowley is no stranger to police, with a criminal history dating back close to 15 years.

Rowley was accused of falsifying physical evidence and evidence-criminal liability for the conduct of another three times in 2009 in Concord. Most of the charges were nolle prossed and she did forfeit $831.88 in January 2012 as part of the case.

While living in Franklin, in September 2017, she was accused of acts prohibited and controlled drug: controlled premises where drugs kept after police tracked online sex ads and calls for service to a home several months before. Investigators alleged there had been more than 40 calls to the home for drug overdoses, prostitution , assaults, wanted subjects, noise complaints, and multiple calls from neighborhood residents reporting possible drug activity. About a year later, she pleaded guilty to the controlled premises charge, receiving a 12 month sentence, suspended for two years.

In February 2021, she was arrested on acts prohibited and driving after revocation or suspension charges in Nashua. She failed to appear at the arraignment in March 2021 but, ultimately, the charges were nolle prossed in April 2021.

In Nashua, in late December 2022, she was arrested on a theft by unauthorized taking charge, a felony due to two prior convictions, after an incident at Kohl’s. Rowley was convicted of theft in Franklin District Court in May 2016 and Concord District Court in August 2016. Rowley was released on $200 cash bail. She failed to appear at a plea and sentencing hearing in September 2023 as well as review hearings on Jan. 5, Jan. 18, and Feb. 29. A warrant was issued for her arrest on April 29. A status conference is booked for May 29.

Four felony sale of a controlled drug charges followed in April 2023 after incidents in January, February, and April 2023 in Nashua. She was indicted later in the case, and it is also still active. Rowley failed to appear at a dispositional conference hearing in Hillsborough County Superior Court South in September 2023. She also failed to appear at review hearings on Ja. 5, Jan. 18, Feb. 22, and Feb. 29. A bail hearing was held on April 29, and she was held on preventative detention. A status conference is booked for May 29.

Rowley is also facing drug possession, contraband, falsifying physical evidence, two delivery of weapon, and two breach of bail charges out of Manchester after an incident mid-December 2023. She failed to appear at an arraignment and bail hearing in Hillsborough County Superior Court North on March 15. Rowley was arraigned on May 1 and held on $25,000 cash bail.

Anyone with information about the case was asked to contact Nashua police at 603-589-1665.

Do you have a news tip? Please email it to tony.schinella@patch.com. View videos on Tony Schinella’s YouTube.com channel or Rumble.com channel. Follow the NH politics Twitter account @NHPatchPolitics for all our campaign coverage.

The New Hampshire House passed a bill Thursday raising the legal age of marriage to 18, sending the legislation to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk after years of advocacy.

Senate Bill 359, which passed 192-174, states that “no person below the age of 18 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.” Under present law, that age is 16.

The bill would also repeal statutes that currently provide legal avenues for minors to marry. Currently, RSA 457:6 allows parents and guardians for those between 16 and 18 to petition a family court to grant permission for the marriage. That petition must include an indication of whether the Division for Children, Youth and Families has ever been involved with the child, and it allows the court to conduct an interview with each minor getting married without their parents present. SB 359 would eliminate the process entirely.

If signed into law, SB 359 would make New Hampshire one of 12 states that have banned marriage under 18 with no exceptions, a list that includes Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, according to UNICEF. 

Maine currently allows 16- and 17-year-olds to marry with written consent from their parents, legal guardians, or custodians. But any marriage of minors in Maine would be invalid in New Hampshire if SB 359 becomes law. 

The bill comes after years of pressure by Rep. Cassandra Levesque, a Barrington Democrat. In 2018, Levesque, then 19 and not yet a state representative, advocated for the Legislature to raise the marriage age to 18 from 14; House and Senate Republicans agreed to pass a bill to raise it to 16 instead. Later that year, Levesque won her first election to the House and has continued to press for the age to be raised to 18. 

Levesque argued raising the age would help reduce exploitative situations. 

“The committee found that this bill is important to be in law because we know that age of majority does not amount to maturity, and that there is a greater risk of human trafficking and domestic violence without these protections,” she said in remarks in the House Calendar introducing SB 359. 

Republican lawmakers have opposed raising the marriage age in recent years. On Thursday, Rep. Margaret Drye, a Plainfield Republican, argued there were some circumstances in which marriage was a beneficial option for those under 18. 

Drye recounted two times when a friend or a family member had obtained judicial approval for a marriage below the age of 16 because of an unexpected pregnancy. 

“They elected to get married because that offered to the young woman things that she didn’t have before: stability, provision, protection, and a chance for a young family to be a family before a baby arrived,” she said. “The goal was still the same: marriage and raising a family together. They just got there in a little different timeline.”

Rep. Jess Edwards argued that taking away the possibility of marriage could lead more 16- and 17-year-olds to abortion.

“… If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not in fact making abortion a much more desirable alternative, when marriage might be the right solution for some freedom-loving couples?” he said. 

And Rep. Tony Lekas of Hudson cited his marriage to Rep. Alicia Lekas, also of Hudson, which he said began when he was 16. “And we didn’t need any outside input from anyone,” he said. “We’ve been married almost 53 years.” 

Rep. Josh Yokela, a Fremont Republican, introduced two amendments that would have made an exception to the 18-year-old marriage requirement if the minors had been emancipated by a court. 

But House Democrats countered that children should not be married at 16 or 17 under any circumstances. And they disagreed that emancipation should be a qualification. 

“The fact of the matter is that emancipated minors cannot vote; they cannot purchase or consume tobacco or alcohol; they cannot purchase firearms,” said Rep. Peter Petrigno. “Why then would we allow for an age exception to marriage and nothing else?” 

Petrigno argued that emancipated children are some of the most vulnerable children, and could be taken advantage of by adults if allowed to marry.

“Marriage is an emotional lifetime commitment based on love, not a solution to an unintended pregnancy,” he said. “We should not be putting children in a position to be taken advantage of by unsavory adults.”

Both of Yokela’s amendments were voted down. The bill will head to Sununu’s desk in the coming weeks.