Framework for Evaluating Trial Continuance and Direct‐Appeal Ineffective Assistance Claims

Introduction

In State of New Hampshire v. Joshua Kandoll (No. 2023-0487, March 26, 2025), the New Hampshire Supreme Court confronted three key issues arising from a high-profile child-sexual-assault prosecution: (1) whether last-minute disclosure of witness interviews justified a continuance; (2) whether trial counsel’s performance was so deficient that it could be reviewed on direct appeal; and (3) whether certain confidential school records should have been produced after an in camera review. The parties were the State of New Hampshire, prosecuting felonious sexual assault (RSA 632-A:3, III) and indecent exposure and lewdness (RSA 645:1, II(a)), and the defendant, Joshua Kandoll, a step-father accused of showering with his three-year-old step-daughter and engaging in sexual contact.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Kandoll’s convictions, holding that:

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a one-day-of-trial continuance where most of the “new” evidence had been previously disclosed.
Ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims raised on direct appeal must generally await development of a record in the superior court; they cannot be conclusively resolved on the cold appellate record here.
The trial court acted within its discretion in conducting an in camera review of the victim’s school records and declining to release nondisclosable material.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Czekalski, 169 N.H. 732 (2017): Reinforced that denial of a continuance is reviewed only for unsustainable discretion.
State v. Linsky, 117 N.H. 866 (1977): Emphasized a contextual, totality-of-circumstances approach rather than a mechanical test when assessing due process in continuance denials.
State v. Addison, 160 N.H. 792 (2010): Confirmed that continuance denials are sustainable absent unreasonable prejudice under the totality of circumstances.
State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507 (2011): Established that most IAC claims cannot be resolved on direct appeal unless the record clearly demonstrates an egregious failure.
State v. Fitzgerald, 173 N.H. 564 (2020): Underlined deference to counsel’s strategic decisions absent proof of unreasonable omissions.
State v. Girard, 173 N.H. 619 (2020): Clarified standards for in camera review of confidential records, emphasizing relevance and materiality.

Legal Reasoning

1. Continuance Motion: The Court applied a deferential standard, weighing four factors: length and reason for delay, prejudice, diligence of counsel, and the State’s interest in prompt trial. Although counsel cited surprise at the State’s one-day-prior disclosure of detailed witness interview summaries, most of the content—sexualized behaviors—had been disclosed six months earlier in DCYF records. Under the totality test (Linsky, Addison), the record showed no untenable prejudice, and the trial judge’s decision to reserve evidentiary rulings for trial demonstrated careful case management.

2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Citing Thompson and Fitzgerald, the Court reiterated that appellate courts must presume strategic choices are reasonable and that an inadequate record precludes full evaluation of counsel’s reasons for omitting objections. Because Kandoll had not sought a new trial with evidentiary development in superior court, his direct appeal IAC claims were dismissed without prejudice.

3. In Camera Review: The Court performed its own review of the victim’s school records, finding no relevant or material information impacting the defense. Guided by Girard, the Court upheld the trial court’s discretion in limiting disclosure to records that could genuinely affect credibility or bias.

Impact

This decision crystallizes three important doctrines:

Trial courts may deny short-notice continuances when a new disclosure largely mirrors previously produced evidence, reinforcing the need for defense counsel to anticipate and plan for all disclosed materials.
IAC claims resting on tactical omissions generally require a full record in superior court; appellate courts will dismiss them without prejudice rather than speculate from an incomplete record.
In camera review remains a robust gatekeeping tool: confidential records will be disclosed only if they bear on material issues of bias or credibility, safeguarding victim privacy while respecting due process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Continuance: A court’s decision to delay a trial. Denial is reviewed for clear abuse of discretion, focusing on fairness and prejudice.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC): A constitutional claim that a lawyer’s errors were so serious they denied a fair trial. Most IAC claims must be fleshed out with evidence in the trial court before appellate review.
In Camera Review: A private, judge-only examination of sensitive records to determine if they must be disclosed to the parties.

Conclusion

State of New Hampshire v. Kandoll reaffirms the trial court’s broad discretion over continuance motions, clarifies the limited circumstances under which ineffective assistance of counsel can be reviewed on direct appeal, and underscores the judicial balance between victim privacy and defendant’s access to material evidence through in camera review. Together, these holdings provide clear guidance for trial judges, practitioners, and litigants navigating similar evidentiary and procedural challenges in criminal trials.