State v. Letendre, 13 A.3d 249

Letendre was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault and two counts of simple assault under New Hampshire statutes.
On appeal, he challenged the trial court’s admission of E.M.'s statements to a sexual assault nurse examiner as hearsay under Rule 803(4).
He also challenged the court’s ruling allowing the guardian ad litem to sit beside E.M. during her testimony.
E.M., age ten, testified about alleged sexual incidents with Letendre occurring in early 2008, with other encounters alleged between February and March 2008.
The State presented statements E.M. made to McMurray at the hospital; the trial court denied the hearsay objection after a hearing.
The trial court allowed the guardian ad litem to sit with E.M. during testimony, and no contemporaneous instruction about the guardian was given because no objection was made.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of statements under Rule 803(4)	Letendre argues insufficient intent evidence for medical purpose.	Letendre contends statements lack medical purpose and trustworthiness.	Court upheld admission
Guardian ad litem sitting with child witness	Guardian seating supported child welfare and testimony clarity.	Seating improperly influenced credibility and emotions.	Court affirmed discretion to allow seating

State v. Legere, 157 N.H. 746 (2008) (appellate deference to evidentiary rulings; standard review)
State v. Graf, 143 N.H. 294 (1999) (three-part Rule 803(4) test for medical-diagnosis evidence)
State v. Roberts, 130 N.H. 730 (1993) (intent to obtain medical diagnosis can be circumstantial)
State v. Wade, 136 N.H. 750 (1993) (child declarants and understanding of medical purpose)
State v. White, 145 N.H. 544 (2000) (temporal proximity and emotional upheaval support intent finding)
State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203 (1991) (preservation of error and limiting instructions)
State v. Hebert, 158 N.H. 306 (2009) (limiting/instruction considerations on appeal)