THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2019-0322, State of New Hampshire v. Joshua Pouliot, the court on March 11, 2021, issued the following order: On June 10, 2019, the defendant, Joshua Pouliot, appealed convictions, following a jury trial, on three counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, see RSA 632-A:2 (Supp. 2020), and one count of felonious sexual assault, see RSA 632-A:3 (Supp. 2020). The defendant argued, among other things, that the Trial Court (Delker, J.) may have erred when, after conducting an in camera review of certain confidential records, the court ordered that only certain portions of those records be disclosed to him.

On January 13, 2021, this court issued an opinion affirming the defendant’s convictions in part and remanding. See State v. Pouliot, 174 N.H. ___, ___ (decided January 13, 2021). We observed that, when the trial court conducted its in camera review, it did not have the benefit of our opinion in State v. Girard, 173 N.H. ___, ___ (decided October 16, 2020) (slip op. at 6- 10), in which we clarified the standard that a trial court must apply when determining whether confidential records must be disclosed to a defendant.

See Pouliot, 174 N.H. at __ (slip op. at 8). We therefore remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of having it review the confidential records again, in accordance with the standard set forth in Girard. See id. at __ (slip op. at 8).

We instructed the trial court to report the results of its review to this court. Id. at __ (slip op. at 8). We stated that if the court determined that it would have disclosed any of the records that it withheld had it applied the standard set forth in Girard, it was required to order a new trial unless it determined that its failure to disclose such records was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at __ (slip op. at 8). If the court determined under Girard that it would have ordered the disclosure of any of the withheld records, but that its failure to disclose such records was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, it was required to identify in its report the records that it would have disclosed, but was ordered not to disclose such records to the parties. Id. at __ (slip op. at 8). Unless the court determined that the defendant was entitled to a new trial, the clerk of the Rockingham County Superior Court was ordered to transfer the confidential records to this court after the trial court completed its review of the records and reported the results of the review to this court. Id. at __ (slip op. at 8-9).

The trial court has now completed its review of the records, and has determined that it would not have disclosed any additional records to the defendant had it applied the standard set forth in Girard. We review a trial court’s ruling on the management of discovery to determine whether its decision is sustainable. Girard, 173 N.H. at __ (slip op. at 7). Under the circumstances of this case, to determine whether the court’s decision is not sustainable, we review the court’s rulings to determine whether they were clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of the defendant’s case.

State v. Guay, 162 N.H. 375, 385 (2011). After reviewing all of the records reviewed by the trial court, we conclude that the court sustainably exercised its discretion when it determined that it would not have disclosed any additional records had it applied the standard set forth in Girard. See id. Affirmed.

HICKS, BASSETT, HANTZ MARCONI, and DONOVAN, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk