Cited by

cannot constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765, 769-70 (2008).

[¶16] To determine whether the two offenses charged in this case will be considered the same under our state double jeopardy analysis, we ask “whether the facts charged in the second indictment would, if true, have sustained the first.” State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765, 773 (2008) (quotation omitted).

The defendant’s alleged lie to the police about her identity came after the “stop” and is, thus, not subject to exclusion.

The defendant’s alleged lie to the police about her identity came after the “stop” and is, thus, not subject to exclusion.

State v. Livingston, 153 N.H. 399, 408 (2006); Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227; State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765, 772 (2008); Brown, 422 U.S. at 603-04.

If the evidence in question has been obtained only through the exploitation of an antecedent illegality, it must be suppressed.” State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765, 771 (2008) (quotation omitted).

Because the issue of double jeopardy presents a question of constitutional law, our review is de novo.

To assert a successful claim for ineffective assistance of counsel under the State Constitution, a defendant must show, first, that counsel’s representation was constitutionally deficient and, second, that counsel’s deficient performance actually prejudiced the outcome of the case.

“Two offenses will be considered the same for double jeopardy purposes unless each requires proof of an element that the other does not.” State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765, 773 (2008) (quotation and brackets omitted).

We next consider whether the defendant’s statements and the evidence obtained under the search warrant must also be suppressed as fruit of the illegal search.

Under the New Hampshire Constitution, “[t]wo offenses will be considered the same for double jeopardy purposes unless each requires proof of an element that the other does not.” State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765, 773 (2008) (quotation and brackets omitted).

To prevail on his claim, the defendant must demonstrate, “first, that counsel’s representation was constitutionally deficient and, second, that counsel’s deficient performance actually prejudiced the outcome of the case.” State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765, 769 (2008) (quotation omitted); see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.

“Two offenses will be considered the same for double jeopardy purposes unless each requires proof of an element that the other does not.” State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765, 773 (2008) (quotation and brackets omitted).

To prevail upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must demonstrate, “first, that counsel’s representation was constitutionally deficient and, second, that counsel’s deficient performance actually prejudiced the outcome of the case.” State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765, 769 (2008) (quotation omitted).

This conclusion is supported by our decision that RSA 641:6, I, does not require that the evidence falsified be admissible at trial.