Cited by

(quotation omitted); see also State v. Hoag, 145 N.H. 47, 50 (2000) (“In order to trigger in camera review, the defendant must assert some factual basis beyond the mere existence of counseling records.”).

Because the defendant prevails under the State Constitution, we need not analyze his argument under the Federal Constitution.

Because the defendant prevails under the State Constitution, we need not analyze his argument under the Federal Constitution.

State v. Hoag, 145 N.H. 47, 50 (2000) (remanded for determination as to whether victim attended counseling when defendant established reasonable belief that she did).

The details of this child molestation case need not be set forth; it is sufficient to examine only those circumstances that surround the defendant’s appeal.

Ellsworth, 142 N.H. at 714; see also State v. Hoag, 145 N.H. 47, 49-50 (2000).

In general, a defendant must make a specific and contemporaneous objection during trial to preserve an issue for appellate review.

Assuming without deciding that defense counsel’s argument satisfied the requirements of Graham and Gagne by setting forth “some factual basis beyond the mere existence of counseling records,” State v. Hoag, 145 N.H. 47, 50 (2000), we nevertheless uphold the trial court’s refusal to grant in camera review.

For the trial court to conduct an in cam,era review of the minor victims’ confidential records, the defendant first had to show a reasonable probability that the records contained information that was material and relevant to his stated defense.

Therefore, this issue is not preserved for appellate review.

State v. Hoag, 145 N.H. 47, 52, 749 A.2d 331, 333 (2000) (new trial not warranted unless error of precluding evidence was prejudicial to case).

We address the defendant’s argument under only the State Constitution “because [it] provides at least as much protection to criminal defendants in this area as does the [Federal Constitution].” State v. Hoag, 145 N.H. 47, 48, 749 A.2d 331, 332 (2000).

Generally, “a defendant must make a specific and contemporaneous objection during trial to preserve an issue for appellate review.” State v. Hoag, 145 N.H. 47, 52, 749 A.2d 331, 334 (2000).