Cited by

State v. Turmelle, 132 N.H. 148, 152, 562 A.2d 196, 198 (1989) (citing State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983)).

In the following discussion, we rely on federal cases to decide Williams’s federal constitutional claim, but we use these cases only to guide us in ruling on Williams’s State constitutional claim.

However, as Pellicci correctly argues, we have held that our Constitution may be more protective of individual rights than the Federal Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983).

Since we have been presented with both State and federal constitutional claims, we will address the State constitutional claim first.

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983); State v. Scarborough, 124 N.H. 363, 368, 470 A.2d 909, 913 (1983).

State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986); State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983); see State v. King, 131 N.H. 173, 176, 551 A.2d 973, 975 (1988) (State constitutional issue not addressed because relief was available under Federal Constitution).

We first examine her claim under the New Hampshire Constitution, and will only address federal constitutional issues to the extent that the United States Constitution provides greater protection than our State Constitution.

We first examine the underlying claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by analyzing the protection afforded under the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only to guide our analysis, see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 (1983).

We begin by making an independent analysis of the protection afforded under the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions as guides.

We begin, as we must, by first making an independent analysis of the protection afforded under the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only as guides in our analysis.

In analyzing the admissibility of the defendant’s statements, we first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution.

Like the trial court, however, we decide this case under our own constitution and need not look to its federal counterpart because the latter does not provide greater protection to individual liberties than does our own.

We will therefore dispense with our usual independent analyses, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983), and will examine the statutes under both constitutions together.

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983); cf. State v. King, 131 N.H. 173, 176, 551 A.2d 973, 975 (1988).

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983); cf. State v. King, 131 N.H. 173, 176, 551 A.2d 973, 975 (1988).

Our case law requires that we first examine this claim under the State Constitution, relying on federal case law only for guidance.

Then, if necessary, we will look to the Federal Constitution to determine whether it affords the defendant greater protection.

Because he alleges both State and federal violations, we will look first to our own State Constitution and then, if necessary, will look to the Federal Constitution to determine whether it provides the defendant with greater protection.

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983); cf. State v. Doe, 115 N.H. 682, 685, 371 A.2d 167, 169 (1975).

We begin with the State claim.

We begin, as we must, by first making an independent analysis of the protection afforded under the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only as guides in our analysis, see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 (1983).

We first address the defendant’s State constitutional claim, and thereafter reach the federal claim only to the extent that the Federal Constitution provides greater protection.

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983); see also Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 452 (1962); State v. Morehouse, 120 N.H. 738, 743, 424 A.2d 798, 801 (1980).

We consider each assertion in turn, and begin with the State constitutional challenge.

In keeping with our decision in State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 471 A.2d 347 (1983), we first consider her claim under part I, article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

We initially address the State constitutional claim and dispose of the due process issue on that basis if we find that the State provision affords adequate protection.

Although we consider the issue initially under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 471 A.2d 347 (1983), a discussion of the State claim will serve as a consideration of the federal claim as well, for the defendant advances no basis in concept or policy for applying State and federal standards differently.

ctive standard of reasonable competence governs claims of ineffective assistance, whether raised under part I, article 15 of the Constitution of New Hampshire or under the sixth and fourteenth amendments of the National Constitution, State v. Faragi, 127 N.H. 1, 4-5, 498 A.2d 723, 726 (1985), and we therefore do not discuss the federal claim separately from our State analysis, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983).

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983); see also Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).

We have held that the Federal and State Constitutions provide defendants with equal levels of protection in ineffective assistance cases, see Hopps v. State Board of Parole, 127 N.H. 133, 135, 500 A.2d 355, 356 (1985); therefore, we do not consider the State and federal issues sequentially as would normally be required under State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 471 A.2d 347 (1983).

We will consider the defendant’s State constitutional argument first.

The defendant’s motion made at the trial court level, to suppress evidence obtained from the initial search, specifically noted part I, article 19 of the State Constitution; and his accompanying memorandum of law cited State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 471 A.2d 347 (1983) and State v. Berthiaume, 124 N.H. 264, 470 A.2d 893 (1983), both of which dealt with warrantless searches and were decided on State constitutional grounds.

We begin our analysis by considering the plaintiff’s due process claim under the New Hampshire Constitution, relying on federal precedents only for guidance.

Although we read Gerstein as indicating federal rights may well be recognized in the way New Hampshire has structured its preliminary hearing, the United States Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue and we decide this case under the State Constitution.

We begin by first making an independent analysis of the protections afforded under the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only as aids in *20 our analysis.

We proceed by considering the defendant’s rights under State law, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), relying on authority from other jurisdictions solely as a guide to our analysis of the State claim.

We will begin, as we must, by first making an independent analysis of the protections afforded under the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only as aids in our analysis, see Michigan v. Long, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 3476 (1983).

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983); see also Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).

This court has stated that it “has the power to interpret the New Hampshire Constitution as more protective of individual rights than the parallel provisions of the United States Constitution.” State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983).

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983); see also Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983); see also Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).

We begin our analysis of the defendant’s constitutional argument, as we must, by first making an independent analysis of the protections afforded under the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only as aids in our analysis, see Michigan v. Long, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 3476 (1983).

We will analyze and decide the defendant’s claims under the New Hampshire Constitution, and see no need to make a separate federal analysis because the Federal Constitution provides no greater protection to the defendant.

State constitutional law is identical to the law of its federal counterpart in this case, see State v. Parker, 127 N.H. 525, 529, 503 A.2d 809, 811 (1985), and we therefore will analyze and decide the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution without making a separate federal analysis.

We consider the plaintiffs’ State constitutional argument first, as we must.

We therefore first analyze the issues presented under our State Constitution.

We will analyze and decide the defendant’s claims under the New Hampshire Constitution, and see no need to make a separate federal analysis because the Federal Constitution provides no greater protection to the defendant.

In answering the first and second questions, we will begin, as we must, by first making an independent analysis of the protections afforded under the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only as aids in our analysis, see Michigan v. Long, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 3476 (1983).

We first address the State constitutional issue.

Because the Bagleys_have asjs.ertecLboth State and federal due process claims, we first will address_thLQse_ arising under the New Hampshire Constitution, and will rely on federal precedents merely for guidance.