34 A.3d 655
N.H.2011Background
- King was convicted of two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault after a jury trial in superior court.
- King appealed the denial of his supplemental motion for in camera review of KH.'s medical and DCYF records and related counseling records.
- Pretrial orders allowed the parties to review DCYF and Mental Health Center records at the courthouse.
- Review of records showed KH. had ADD and ODD; King sought records pertaining to these disorders and treatment, including medications and potential effects on KH.'s competence as a witness.
- King argued the records contained material and exculpatory information, including KH.'s tendency to lie and a prior false allegation, which could affect his defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the trial court’s denial of the supplemental in camera review supported? | Gagne threshold met: records likely contain material, relevant to defense. | Records already disclosed are voluminous; additional records are not material. | No; denial was an unsustainable discretion; district court should have reviewed. |
| Did the court misapply the governing standard for in camera review of confidential records? | Threshold showing is not unduly high and must be based on plausible relevance. | Record volumes and prior disclosures render additional records non-material. | Yes; misapplied standard; substantial probability records could be material. |
| What is the proper remedy if the records contain essential and reasonably necessary defense evidence? | If essential, a new trial should be ordered unless error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | Remand not required or limited to other remedies. | Remand for in camera review; if essential evidence exists, order a new trial unless harmless error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagne v. State, 136 N.H. 101 (1992) (balance confidentiality with defense access; in camera review as intermediate step)
- Graham v. State, 142 N.H. 357 (1997) (threshold for material information not unduly high)
- Hoag, 145 N.H. 47 (2000) (articulating plausible theory of relevance and materiality required)
- Sargent v. State, 148 N.H. 571 (2002) (recovery of discovery rulings under abuse of discretion standard)
- Guay, 162 N.H. 375 (2011) (standard of review for disclosure decisions in criminal cases)