State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507

Six-year-old D.K. alleged Thompson showed her pornography and touched her; disclosures occurred after weekend visit to Thompson's residence in Concord.
Primary trial evidence consisted of unobjected hearsay from the babysitter, mother, and Detective Dougherty about D.K.'s statements; D.K. herself denied touching Thompson when testifying.
Defense opened by attacking D.K.'s credibility; defense did not object to early hearsay testimony, and recanted allegations by D.K. occurred days before trial.
Evidence also included mother’s detailed conversations and statements about the incident, introduced without timely objection.
Trial court admitted hearsay over objections on multiple occasions; defense sought dismissal arguing no prima facie case.
Court ultimately convicted Thompson; appellate court reversed and remanded for new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel arising from failure to object to inadmissible hearsay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel’s failure to object to inadmissible hearsay was deficient performance	Thompson claims counsel’s pervasive, unexplained non-objections deprived him of a fair trial.	State contends hearsay was admissible under exceptions or strategy supported objections.	Thompson prevails; ineffective assistance due to failure to object; remanded.
Whether the direct appeal is an appropriate vehicle to decide an ineffectiveness claim	Record shows all necessary facts on appeal; direct review appropriate.	Ineffectiveness normally collateral; delay justice.	Direct appellate review allowed in extraordinary case where the trial record fully supports the claim.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay or related evidence	Hearsay evidence supported the State’s prima facie case and should be admitted under exceptions.	Objected to inadmissible hearsay; trial errors undermined conviction.	Review limited; Court reverses on the basis of ineffective assistance, not separate hearsay rulings.
Whether counsel’s conflict of interest facts justify further proceedings	Parents represented by same attorney create conflict adversely affecting defense.	No clear, undisputed record of conflict; requires collateral inquiry.	Conflict issue not resolved on direct appeal; remanded for collateral proceedings if pursued.

State v. Veale, 154 N.H. 730 (2007) (ineffective assistance claims normally collateral; stay when public defender conflict)
State v. Kinne, 161 N.H. 41 (2010) (prefers collateral review but permits direct appeal in limited instances)
Adamides, 639 N.E.2d 1092 (Mass. 1994) (three-category framework for ineffectiveness review on direct appeal)
Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208 (Ind. 1998) (categorizes ineffectiveness review on direct appeal vs collateral)
State v. Nichols, 698 A.2d 521 (Me. 1997) (discusses each approach to ineffectiveness review)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (premature review considerations in evidence and trial conduct)
Whyte, 684 N.E.2d 626 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997) (manifestly unreasonable trial strategy standard for objections)