Cited by

[¶12] We have since explained that the “threshold showing necessary to trigger an in camera review is not unduly high,” but a defendant “must meaningfully articulate how the information sought is relevant and material to his defense.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 363 (1997).

State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 364 (1997) (if records contain evidence that should have been disclosed, the trial court “should order a new trial unless it finds that the error of not admitting the evidence in the first trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).

State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 364 (1997) (if records contain evidence that should have been disclosed, the trial court “should order a new trial unless it finds that the error of not admitting the evidence in the first trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).

105, we held that to obtain in camera review, “the defendant must establish a reasonable probability that the records contain 2 information that is material and relevant to his defense.” This threshold showing is not high, because if the bar were set too high, “we risk depriving the defendant of his constitutional right to due process.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 363 (1997).

Although the threshold necessary to trigger an in camera review is “not unduly high,” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 363 (1997), the defendant must establish a “reasonable probability that the records contain information that is material and relevant to his defense,” Eaton, 162 N.H. at 193 (quotation omitted).

Then, in reviewing the records, the trial court must determine if material and relevant “evidence is in fact contained in the records.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 363 (1997); see State v. Peseti, 65 P.3d 119, 129 (Haw.

State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 364 (1997) (stating that if records do contain evidence that would have been essential and reasonably necessary to the defense at trial, the trial court “should order a new trial unless it finds that the error of not admitting the evidence in the first trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).

State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 364 (1997) (vacating and remanding when record was unclear whether trial court applied Gagne).

“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the State and uphold the jury’s verdict unless no rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 360 (1997) (citation omitted).

In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the State, and uphold the jury’s verdict unless no rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The challenged instruction was apparently taken from our decisions in State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357 (1997), and State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456 (2007).

This threshold showing “is not unduly high.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 363 (1997).

This threshold showing “is not unduly high.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 363 (1997).

“Where, as here, ‘the victim’s testimony suffices to establish a prima facie case, no corroborating evidence is needed.’” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 360 (1997) (quoting O’Neill, 134 N.H. At 185); see also 29A Am.

RSA 632-A:2, II provides: “A person is guilty of aggravated felonious sexual assault without penetration when he intentionally touches whether directly, through clothing, or otherwise, the genitalia of a person under the age of 13 under circumstances that can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357 (1997), and State v. Blackstock, 147 N.H. 791 (2002), are strikingly similar to this case.

Although “[t]he threshold showing necessary to trigger an in camera review is not unduly high[,] [t]he defendant must meaningfully articulate how the information sought is relevant and material to his defense.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 363 (1997); see also State v. Gagne, 136 N.H. 101, 105 (1992).

Where the victim’s testimony is sufficient to establish a prima facie case, no corroborating evidence is needed.

To meet this threshold requirement, a defendant must present a plausible theory of relevance and materiality sufficient to justify review of otherwise protected documents.

State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 362 (1997); Lambert, 147 N.H. at 296.

State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 362 (1997); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

To prevail on appeal, the defendant must demonstrate that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, no rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

To prevail on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, evaluating all of the evidence and its reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State, could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed the charged crime.

In “a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the State, and *319 uphold the jury’s verdict unless no rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 360 (1997) (citation omitted).

The defendant must meaningfully articulate how the information sought is relevant and material to his defense.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 363 (1997).

“The determination of the relevance of evidence is a matter for the trial court’s sound discretion, and we will not overturn such a determination absent an abuse of discretion.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 362, 702 A.2d 322, 325 (1997).

To meet this threshold requirement, the defendant must present “a plausible theory of relevance and materiality sufficient to justify review of [otherwise] protected documents.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 363, 702 A.2d 322, 325 (1997).

State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 363, 702 A.2d 322, 325-26 (1997) (quotation and citations omitted).

“The defendant must meaningfully articulate how the information sought is relevant and material to his defense.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 363, 702 A.2d 322, 325 (1997).

We view the trial evidence, “and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the State, and uphold the jury’s verdict unless no rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 360, 702 A.2d 322, 324 (1997) (citation omitted).

“To show an abuse of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 362, 702 A.2d 322, 325 (1997) (quotation omitted).

State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357, 363, 702 A.2d 322, 325-26 (1997) (citation and quotations omitted).