62 A.3d 820
N.H.2013Background
- In Oct 1998, a nine-year-old girl disclosed sexual touching by Eschenbrenner; police delayed interview until 1999.
- In 2006, a CAC interview occurred and a warrant issued after Labell learned of the alleged abuse.
- Eschenbrenner was indicted on three counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault under RSA 632-A:2, II (Supp. 2012).
- Defense theory at trial was that allegations were not credible and any touching was accidental; opening statement framed as a “story.”
- Trial witnesses: CT, CT’s mother, Labell, and Stowell; CT described touching; Stowell had inconsistent handling of initial investigation; Labell explained arrest after CAC interview.
- In 2011, Eschenbrenner moved for a new trial arguing ineffective assistance; the trial court granted relief based on objections to Labell’s and Stowell’s testimony; State appealed and Wins reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to Labell and Stowell testimony | Eschenbrenner argues trial counsel should have objected to improper expert/credibility testimony. | State contends objections would have been futile and testimony proper to provide context. | Yes for Labell; No for Stowell; overall prejudice found not shown. |
| Whether Stowell’s redirected testimony was properly admissible despite nondisclosure | Defense argues nondisclosure and expert status; redirect breached disclosure rules. | State contends doctrine of specific contradiction allows rebuttal; testimony was proper for impeachment. | Redirect testimony admissible; no disclosure error proven; not prejudicial. |
| Prejudice analysis when Labell and Stowell testimony considered together | Combined impact could have affected jury’s assessment of credibility. | Individual impact minimal; evidence viewed in context; no reasonable probability of different outcome. | No reasonable probability the outcome would be different; no prejudicial error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kepple, 155 N.H. 267 (2007) (ineffective assistance standard under state constitution requires prejudice show)
- State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765 (2008) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- State v. Whittaker, 158 N.H. 762 (2009) (constitutional standard aligns with federal benchmark)
- State v. Hall, 160 N.H. 581 (2010) (strong presumption of reasonable professional assistance in strategy)