Opinion ID: 1548296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Dismiss Indictments or Alternative Relief

Text: The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictments or re-depose the State's primary witness. The State originally indicted the defendant on five counts of first-degree assault. Following the deposition of the State's medical expert, the State re-indicted the defendant on twenty-six counts of first-degree assault, one for each of the child's broken bones. The defendant asserts that the court should have dismissed the new indictments or permitted him to re-depose the witness. A trial court's decision to deny a motion for a deposition ... is reviewed by this court under the [unsustainable exercise] of discretion standard. Accordingly, we will overturn the trial court's rulings only if the defendant can show that they are clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case. State v. Chick, 141 N.H. 503, 504, 688 A.2d 553 (1996) (citations omitted). [T]he court, in its discretion, may allow a deposition when a party has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the deposition is needed to ensure a fair trial, avoid surprise or for other good cause shown. Id. at 505, 688 A.2d 553 (quotation omitted). In denying the motion, the trial court found that [t]he new indictments cover allegations contained within the old indictments and discovery and [d]efense counsel was able to question the Doctor with respect to each bone contained in each of the new indictments. Based upon these findings, we hold that the filing of the new charges did not impede the defendant's ability to prepare a defense. Because the defendant suffered no prejudice, we further hold that the trial court's ruling did not constitute an unsustainable exercise of discretion.