Cited by

We analyze Wesley’s constitutional claims first under the New Hampshire Constitution, relying on cases interpreting the Federal Constitution only to aid in our analysis.

We analyze her claim under the State Constitution first.

We address the petitioner’s State constitutional claim first.

We analyze the petitioner’s claim under the State Constitution first.

Id.; see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983).

V. We first address the defendant’s argument under our State Constitution, using federal law only as an aid in our analysis.

We first address the plaintiff’s claims under our State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only to aid in our analysis.

In analyzing the defendant’s State constitutional arguments we rely upon federal cases only for guidance.

We analyze his claim under the State Constitution first.

We first address his State constitutional argument, citing federal law only as an aid to our analysis.

We address the State constitutional claim first.

we do not engage in a separate federal analysis.” State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 611, 732 A.2d 414, 417 (1999) (quotation, citations, brackets, and ellipsis omitted); see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983).

We first address the plaintiffs’ constitutional questions under our State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983), and “because the State Constitution provides at least as much protection as the Federal Constitution in this instance, we need not conduct a separate federal analysis.” In re 1991 Chevrolet Cavalier, 142 N.H. 705, 707, 708 A.2d 397, 398 (1998); see Douglas v. Douglas, 143 N.H. 419

Y. We first analyze the defendant’s double jeopardy claim under the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983), and use federal law only as a guide to our analysis.

As the federal confrontation clause affords no greater protection than the State confrontation clause, see State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 744, 622 A.2d 1225, 1235 (1993), we consider his claim under the State Constitution first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), and refer to federal law only if it aids in our analysis, see State v. Jaroma, 139 N.H. 611, 613, 660 A.2d 1131, 1132 (1995).

State v. Santana, 133 N.H. 798, 803, 586 A.2d 77, 80 (1991); State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983).

Because we find the New Hampshire Constitution at least as protective of the defendant’s rights in this case as the Federal Constitution, see State v. Graf, 143 N.H. 294, 296, 726 A.2d 1270, 1277 (1999) (due process); State v. Rideout, 143 N.H. 363, 365, 725 A.2d 8, 9 (1999) (impartial jury), we do not engage in a separate federal analysis, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983).

We analyze her State claim first.

We will address the State constitutional claim and cite to federal law only as an aid in our analysis.

We address the State constitutional claim first, citing to federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We analyze the defendant’s claims first under our State Constitution, referring to federal cases only to aid in our analysis.

We address the State constitutional claim first.

We first consider the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and hold that because the elemental evidence for each charge was different, the multiple prosecutions did not violate Part I, Article 16 of the State Constitution.

icle 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution is at least as protective of the defendant’s rights as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, cf. Knowles v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 140 N.H. 387, 389, 666 A.2d 972, 975 (1995), and as the Sixth Amendment, see State v. Settle, 132 N.H. 626, 630, 570 A.2d 895, 897 (1990), we do not engage in a separate federal analysis, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983).

We will first analyze the defendant’s due process claim under the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983), relying on cases interpreting the Federal Constitution only to aid in our analysis.

“Because we believe the principles are the same and because we believe that the New Hampshire Constitution provides at least as much protection as does the Federal Constitution on this issue, we address the defendant’s claims under State law, looking to federal law only for guidance.” State v. Weir, 138 N.H. 671, 673, 645 A.2d 56, 57 (1994) (citation omitted); see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983).

We will first examine the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), utilizing cases from federal courts and other jurisdictions to aid in our analysis, see State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

We address the defendant’s claim under our State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using federal case law only to aid in our analysis, see State v. Jaroma, 139 N.H. 611, 613, 660 A.2d 1131, 1132 (1995).

I, art. 19; U.S. Const. amend, IV we will address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first and cite to federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We address Dr. Trotzer’s State constitutional claims first, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only as an aid to our analysis, Appeal of Dell, 140 N.H. 484, 491, 668 A.2d 1024, 1031 (1995).

We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first and cite to federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We look to the decisions of other jurisdictions for guidance only in resolving the State constitutional issue before us. See State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 233, 471 A.2d 347, 352 (1983).

We consider the defendant’s argument first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), relying upon federal decisions only for guidance, see Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. at 26, 622 A.2d at 1246.

respect to any of the questions posed concerning his financial activities during the last twenty (20) years”; and (2) holding that the defendant “had waived his constitutional privileges against self-incrimination when he made financial disclosures prior to receiving notice of the federal ‘RICO’ Complaint.” *883 We address the defendant’s claims first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and “[w]here, as in the instant case, the federal law is

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and will engage in a separate federal analysis only if federal law is more favorable to the defendant, cf. State v. Seymour, 140 N.H. 736, 742, 673 A.2d 786, 791, cert.

We confine our analysis to the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), because the Federal Constitution affords the defendant no greater protection, see Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368-69 (1983).

We consider the defendant’s claims, first, under our State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), using federal case *673 law only to assist our analysis.

State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985); State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232-33, 471 A.2d 347, 351-52 (1983).

State v. Goodnow, 140 N.H. 38, 40, 662 A.2d 950, 951 (1995); State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983).

We first address the State constitutional claim, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), utilizing cases from federal courts and other jurisdictions merely as an analytical aid.

Because the State Constitution is at least as protective as its federal counterpart, see Berube v. Belhumeur, 139 N.H. 562, 567, 663 A.2d 598, 601 (1995), we will not conduct a separate federal analysis but will cite federal law only as an analytical aid.

cases merely to aid in our analysis.

We address the defendant’s claims first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), considering cases from the federal courts and courts of other jurisdictions only as an analytical aid, State v. Grant-Chase, 140 N.H. 264, 266, 665 A.2d 380, 382, (1995), cert.

We analyze the defendant’s State constitutional arguments first, relying upon federal cases only for guidance.

V, XIV We address Dr. Grimm’s State constitutional claim first, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law solely to aid in our analysis.

Although the legislative decision to treat New Hampshire and out-of-state sources of income differently coneededly violates the commerce clause, we might conclude that it was valid under the State Constitution, which we examine independently.

We first address the petitioner’s arguments under our State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), and consider federal law solely as an analytical aid.

For this reason, we address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using federal precedents only as an aid in our analysis.

We begin by analyzing the defendant’s claim under the New Hampshire Constitution.

We consider the defendant’s argument first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), relying upon federal decisions only for guidance in illuminating the State constitutional issue, see Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. at 26, *516 622 A.2d at 1246.