State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270

Harold Oakes was charged with two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault and one count of felonious sexual assault under RSA 632-A:2 and RSA 632-A:3.
A DCF report on November 8, 2007 alleged sexual abuse of E.N., a foster child under thirteen, prompting police involvement.
Dual police interviews occurred on December 1, 2007, and a later polygraph session on December 6, 2007, followed by another police interview.
Indictment occurred February 15, 2008; in July 2008, Oakes moved to compel depositions of interviewing officers and the polygraph examiner; the court denied.
In August 2008, the State sought to amend the indictments to extend the period of alleged incidents to September 1, 2006; the court granted on September 3, 2008.
Trial proceeded in November 2008; the State sought restitution up to $10,000 for future counseling; the court imposed restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence	State argues victim’s testimony and defendant’s statements prove all elements.	Oakes contends evidence insufficient to prove acts or intent.	Evidence was sufficient; reasonable jurors could find guilt on all counts.
Depositions	State contends depositions unnecessary; information obtainable otherwise.	Oakes asserts depositions needed to challenge voluntariness of confession.	Court did not abuse discretion; depositions were not necessary due to other avenues to challenge voluntariness.
Indictment amendments	amendments were in form, not substance; time frame not an element of offenses.	Amendment altered scope and could prejudice defense.	No plain error; amendments properly permitted and did not prejudice defense.
Victim's prior/subsequent false allegations	Evidence excluded under Rule 403 to avoid prejudice; not probative of credibility.	Kornbrekke approach allows cross-exam probing of credibility; extrinsic evidence may be probative.	Trial court’s Rule 403 ruling upheld; Kornbrekke factors not applied as relied upon; cross-examination analysis consistent with court’s discretion.
Restitution timing and amount	Restitution up to $10,000 for future counseling is appropriate under RSA 651:63.	Restitution is indefinite; unconstitutional/unsupported by record.	Restitution order proper under NH statutory framework; no constitutional error presented.

State v. Ericson, 159 N.H. 379 (2009) (sufficiency review standard; reviewing all evidence in light favorable to State)
State v. Fernandez, 152 N.H. 233 (2005) (necessity of depositions; trial court discretion; non-necessity showed by ample information)
State v. Hall, 148 N.H. 671 (2002) (voluntariness of confession; cross-examination opportunity)
State v. Kornbrekke, 156 N.H. 821 (2008) (factors for admissibility of prior false accusations under Rule 608/403; credibility cross-exam)
State v. Brum, 155 N.H. 408 (2007) (prior false allegations may affect credibility where clearly untrue)
State v. Elliott, 133 N.H. 759 (1990) (form vs substance amendments; grand jury protection)