State v. Eaton, 162 N.H. 190

Eaton was convicted by a jury of four counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, one count of felonious sexual assault, and one count of indecent exposure.
Pre-trial motions sought in camera review of the victim’s counseling records, production of Raymond Police Department records, and dismissal for lack of a speedy trial.
Trial court initially granted in camera review for records existing as of December 7, 2005 and reviewed them; later denial of broader in camera review was challenged.
Defense argued records after December 7, 2005 could be essential and reasonably necessary to the defense; court denied broader in camera review.
State nolle prossed the 2005 indictments and later re-indicted Eaton in 2008; sentencing occurred on two indictments alleging alternative theories of liability, which the State conceded was error.
Court partially affirmed, partially reversed, partially vacated, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court should have conducted in camera review of counseling records.	Eaton showed a reasonable basis that records post-December 7, 2005 may contain material.	Records before July 5, 2005 lacked a basis; only later records were potentially relevant.	Yes for records post-December 7, 2005; not for pre-July 5, 2005.
Whether the trial court erred in denying access to Raymond Police records.	Withheld records could contain information essential to defense.	Discretionary non-disclosure was not an abuse.	No unsustainable abuse; records did not contain essential information.
Whether Eaton’s right to a speedy trial was violated under the State Constitution (and thus by extension the Federal Constitution).	Delay between 2005 nolle prosequi and 2008 re-indictment prejudiced defense.	Delay partly caused by Eaton; some periods count against him; claims of prejudice insufficient.	Not a violation; four Barker factors balanced in Eaton’s favor.
Whether sentencing on two indictments with alternative theories of liability was proper.	Two theories per indictment could validly support conviction.	Sentencing on both indictments for alternative theories was error.	Vacate the lesser charge’s sentence and remand.

State v. Gagne, 136 N.H. 101 (1992) (threshold for in camera review of confidential records; need a reasonable probability of material information)
State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710 (1998) (articulates standard for in camera review derived from Gagne)
State v. Hoag, 145 N.H. 47 (2000) (illustrates applying in camera review when counseling exists but is not certain)
State v. Sargent, 148 N.H. 571 (2002) (unsustainable exercise of discretion standard for review of in camera orders)
State v. Lamarche, 157 N.H. 337 (2008) (speedy-trial Barker factors; balancing prejudice and delays)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor test for speedy-trial claims)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (State constitutional speedy-trial framework guidance)