State v. David Aldrich, 147 A.3d 1188

Background

Defendant David Aldrich was tried and convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault arising from alleged conduct when the victim was older than 13 but under 16; other counts were dismissed.
Pretrial, defendant sought to cross-examine the victim about four prior allegations she made against other men, arguing those prior accusations were false and bore on her credibility.
The trial court allowed inquiry about one prior accusation (against A.A.) but excluded cross-examination about three others (V.A., G.B., M.G.), finding the Miller factors weighed against permitting them.
The court conducted an in camera review of confidential records (DCYF, medical, psychological) and ordered partial disclosure under State v. Gagne; defendant sought further disclosure on appeal.
On appeal, defendant argued the evidentiary rulings violated N.H. R. Ev. 608(b) and 403 and his confrontation rights under the New Hampshire and U.S. Constitutions. The court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Aldrich)	Held
Whether trial court erred under N.H. R. Ev. 608(b) by barring cross-examination about three prior accusations	Excluding cross-examination was proper because defendant failed to show those prior accusations were demonstrably false and their probative value was low	Defendant argued the victim’s prior accusations were false (accused men denied them; one contradicting witness) and thus probative of untruthfulness	Court held exclusion was a sustainable exercise of discretion: defendant did not proffer clear and convincing evidence of falsity, so inquiry lacked probative value under Rule 608(b)
Whether trial court’s limitation violated the Federal Confrontation Clause	Trial court’s limits were reasonable given marginal probative value and risk of prejudice/confusion	Denial of cross-examination violated confrontation rights because it prevented showing a pattern/motive to lie	Court held no Confrontation Clause violation: limits were not arbitrary or disproportionate; this was not an “extreme case” warranting broader cross-examination
Whether the State Constitution (N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 15) required broader cross-examination	State argued constitutional right to confrontation satisfied because defendant was allowed threshold inquiry and other impeachment avenues	Defendant argued State Constitution required ability to probe prior accusations unless demonstrably true	Court held State constitutional right satisfied: defendant had meaningful threshold cross-examination (including about A.A. and many inconsistencies); ‘‘demonstrably false’’ standard requires clear and convincing proof, which defendant lacked
Whether trial court abused discretion in refusing to disclose additional privileged material after in camera review	State argued disclosed portions satisfied Gagne and withheld material was not helpful to defense	Defendant requested further disclosure and asked for appellate in camera review	Court held trial court sustainably exercised discretion; appellate in camera review found withheld records would not aid defense

Key Cases Cited

State v. Kornbrekke, 156 N.H. 821 (discretionary scope of cross-examination; importance of probative-value review under Rule 608(b))
State v. Miller, 155 N.H. 246 (sets nine-factor Miller test for specific-instance impeachment under Rule 608(b))
State v. Abram, 153 N.H. 619 (requires ‘‘demonstrably false’’ standard — clear and convincing evidence — before permitting cross-examination about prior accusations)
State v. Gagne, 136 N.H. 101 (procedures and standards for disclosure of privileged/confidential records to criminal defendant)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (Federal Confrontation Clause: cross-examination important but subject to reasonable limits for prejudice/confusion)
White v. Coplan, 399 F.3d 18 (1st Cir.) (balancing test for confrontation limits: importance of evidence, scope of ban, and state interests)