State v. Frederick Bassett

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0088, State of New Hampshire v.
Frederick Bassett, the court on March 8, 2018, issued the
following order:

Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, and record submitted
on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See
Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The defendant, Frederick Bassett, appeals his convictions, following a
jury trial, on four counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault. See RSA 632-
A:2 (Supp. 2017). He argues that the Superior Court (McNamara, J.) may have
erred in failing to disclose certain documents that it reviewed in camera.

The record shows that the trial court ordered the victim’s counseling
records to be submitted for in camera inspection. After conducting its
in camera review, the court ordered disclosure of certain records that it deemed
were essential and reasonably necessary to the defense. See State v. Guay, 162 N.H. 375, 385 (2011) (defendant entitled to information “essential and
reasonably necessary to the defense at trial”). The defendant argues that the
trial court may have erred by not disclosing additional records that were
essential and reasonably necessary to the theories of defense articulated in his
brief.

We review a trial court’s ruling on whether to disclose confidential
records after an in camera review for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.
State v. Aldrich, 169 N.H. 345, 354 (2016). Based upon our review of the
records, we are satisfied that the portions withheld contained no information
that was essential and reasonably necessary to the defense. See id. Thus, we
conclude that the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion in declining to
disclose additional records.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Lynn, Bassett, and Hantz Marconi, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk