State v. Jason N. Candello, 168 A.3d 70

Background

Defendant Jason N. Candello was tried by jury on second-degree assault (alleging broken ribs and splenic laceration) and felon-in-possession charges; convicted of second-degree assault and acquitted of felon-in-possession.
Victim (defendant’s father) testified defendant struck him multiple times; later hospitalized with two fractured ribs and a grade 4 splenic laceration, admitted to ICU, received a blood transfusion and three days of inpatient care.
State’s trauma surgeon described the splenic injury as significant, potentially requiring splenectomy, and causing substantial blood loss.
At trial the State played two recorded jail phone calls between defendant and his mother after defense counsel, after conferring with defendant, allowed the full tapes to be played despite counsel’s reservations. The tapes contained inculpatory and derogatory statements.
Defense counsel attempted but did not complete cross-examination of the victim about alleged prior inconsistent statements; the investigator’s testimony about those statements was excluded for lack of foundation and the victim was not recalled.
Defendant appealed conviction arguing insufficient evidence of “serious bodily injury,” and later sought a new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (admitting recordings and failing to cross-examine about inconsistencies). The trial court denied the new-trial motion; Supreme Court consolidated appeals and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Defendant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: whether injuries constituted "serious bodily injury" under RSA 625:11, VI	Victim’s treatment and pain were minimal and did not show severe or protracted impairment	Two fractured ribs plus a grade 4 splenic laceration, hospitalization, and transfusion supported a finding of severe impairment	Affirmed — jury could rationally find serious bodily injury (severe impairment)
Ineffective assistance: allowing full jail-call recordings to be played	Trial counsel abdicated strategic decision to defendant and failed to adequately advise or limit jury use; performance was deficient	Counsel consulted defendant, defendant insisted, and counsel reasonably acceded; strategic choice entitled to deference	Affirmed — no deficient performance shown; counsel acted with client direction and used recordings defensively
Ineffective assistance: failure to cross-examine victim about prior inconsistent statements	Counsel’s failure to pursue impeachment was legally unreasonable and undermined confidence in the verdict	Inconsistencies were minor, plausibly explainable by time/layout, and would not have changed outcome	Affirmed — no prejudice; differences were not materially inconsistent and did not undermine verdict
Remedy/new trial standard	Defendant urged reversal or new trial based on errors	State urged deference to trial court findings and Strickland framework; insufficient prejudice shown	Affirmed — defendant failed Strickland performance and prejudice prongs under state and federal standards

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cable, 168 N.H. 673 (discussing de novo review of sufficiency and Strickland analysis)
State v. Dorrance, 165 N.H. 162 (jury decides whether injuries are "serious bodily injury")
State v. Scognamiglio, 150 N.H. 534 (upholding serious bodily injury finding for facial fractures and related injuries)
State v. MacArthur, 138 N.H. 597 (noting "serious bodily injury" defined disjunctively — severe, permanent, or protracted)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong standard for ineffective assistance — performance and prejudice)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (applying state-constitutional analysis alongside federal law)
Mulligan v. Kemp, 771 F.2d 1436 (explaining deference when counsel follows an informed client directive)