State of New Hampshire v. Joshua Pouliot

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0322, State of New Hampshire v. Joshua
Pouliot, the court on March 11, 2021, issued the following
order:

On June 10, 2019, the defendant, Joshua Pouliot, appealed convictions,
following a jury trial, on three counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault,
see RSA 632-A:2 (Supp. 2020), and one count of felonious sexual assault, see
RSA 632-A:3 (Supp. 2020). The defendant argued, among other things, that
the Trial Court (Delker, J.) may have erred when, after conducting an in
camera review of certain confidential records, the court ordered that only
certain portions of those records be disclosed to him.

On January 13, 2021, this court issued an opinion affirming the
defendant’s convictions in part and remanding. See State v. Pouliot, 174
N.H. ___, ___ (decided January 13, 2021). We observed that, when the trial
court conducted its in camera review, it did not have the benefit of our opinion
in State v. Girard, 173 N.H. ___, ___ (decided October 16, 2020) (slip op. at 6-
10), in which we clarified the standard that a trial court must apply when
determining whether confidential records must be disclosed to a defendant.
See Pouliot, 174 N.H. at __ (slip op. at 8). We therefore remanded to the trial
court for the limited purpose of having it review the confidential records again,
in accordance with the standard set forth in Girard. See id. at __ (slip op. at 8).

We instructed the trial court to report the results of its review to this
court. Id. at __ (slip op. at 8). We stated that if the court determined that it
would have disclosed any of the records that it withheld had it applied the
standard set forth in Girard, it was required to order a new trial unless it
determined that its failure to disclose such records was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. at __ (slip op. at 8). If the court determined under Girard
that it would have ordered the disclosure of any of the withheld records, but
that its failure to disclose such records was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt, it was required to identify in its report the records that it would have
disclosed, but was ordered not to disclose such records to the parties. Id. at __
(slip op. at 8). Unless the court determined that the defendant was entitled to
a new trial, the clerk of the Rockingham County Superior Court was ordered to
transfer the confidential records to this court after the trial court completed its
review of the records and reported the results of the review to this court. Id. at
__ (slip op. at 8-9).
The trial court has now completed its review of the records, and has
determined that it would not have disclosed any additional records to the
defendant had it applied the standard set forth in Girard. We review a trial
court’s ruling on the management of discovery to determine whether its
decision is sustainable. Girard, 173 N.H. at __ (slip op. at 7). Under the
circumstances of this case, to determine whether the court’s decision is not
sustainable, we review the court’s rulings to determine whether they were
clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of the defendant’s case.
State v. Guay, 162 N.H. 375, 385 (2011). After reviewing all of the records
reviewed by the trial court, we conclude that the court sustainably exercised its
discretion when it determined that it would not have disclosed any additional
records had it applied the standard set forth in Girard. See id.

Affirmed.

HICKS, BASSETT, HANTZ MARCONI, and DONOVAN, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2