Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Ball, 471 A.2d 347.

698 citing documents.

State v. Goding 513 A.2d 325 N.H. 1986
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1984) (Federal Constitution provides minimum level of protection of fundamental rights).
State v. Duhamel 512 A.2d 420 N.H. 1986
Because we hold that in this respect our State Constitution provides the identical protection that the Federal Constitution does, we decide the case on an interpretation of the State Constitution and make no separate federal analysis.
State v. Pinder 514 A.2d 1241 N.H. 1986
Thus, our decision is based upon an independent analysis of the protections afforded under the New Hampshire Constitution.
State v. Mercier 509 A.2d 1246 N.H. 1986
As is our custom, we consider the claim under the State Constitution first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), relying on interpretations of the federal counterpart only for guidance in making an independent State analysis.
State v. Baillargeon 508 A.2d 1051 N.H. 1986
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. Dukette 506 A.2d 699 N.H. 1986
We assume that the defendant relies upon the due process guarantee in article 15 of the right to “produce all proofs that may be favorable to himself.” As is our practice, we first consider the State claims independently, see 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. Jones 503 A.2d 802 N.H. 1985
We 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. *522 3469, 3476 (1983).
State v. Parker 503 A.2d 809 N.H. 1985
Although we decide the State issue independently, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using federal precedent only for its help in dealing with the State issue, see Michigan v. Long, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 3476 (1983), the analysis and the result are the same under each constitution.
Soucy v. State 506 A.2d 288 N.H. 1985
We will first address the compensation claim under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of courts of other jurisdictions only as aids to our independent State analysis.
State v. Bailey 503 A.2d 762 N.H. 1985
As is customary, we first consider the State claim independently, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing authority from other jurisdictions solely for its help in dealing with the State issue.
State v. Dennehy 503 A.2d 769 N.H. 1985
We independently consider first our State Constitution, and cases interpreting it, looking to decisions of the United States Supreme Court and those of other jurisdictions only as a guide to our decision.
State v. Oxley 503 A.2d 756 N.H. 1985
We first consider independently his claims under the Constitution of New Hampshire, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States for their helpfulness in analyzing and deciding the issue.
State v. Glidden 499 A.2d 1349 N.H. 1985
Therefore, while we decide the State issue independently, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using federal precedent only for its help in dealing with the State issue, see Michigan v. Long, 103 S.Ct.
State v. Ruffing 499 A.2d 1351 N.H. 1985
Relying on State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 471 A.2d 347 (1983), the defendant first asserts that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him, and that the cigarettes and drug paraphernalia they later seized should have been suppressed.
State v. Koppel 499 A.2d 977 N.H. 1985
We 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. Dayutis 498 A.2d 325 N.H. 1985
We 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. Cooper 498 A.2d 1209 N.H. 1985
We begin, as we must, by first making an independent analysis of the protections afforded under the New Hampshire Constitution.
State v. Whiting 497 A.2d 1217 N.H. 1985
Brock, J. The issue presented in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Superior Court (Johnson, J.) erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized, when it ruled that based on pre-existing law, a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule of State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 471 A.2d 347 (1983) should apply in this case.
Hopps v. State Board of Parole 500 A.2d 355 N.H. 1985
In accordance with our customary practice, we will independently consider the plaintiff’s State constitutional claim first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), looking to cases from other jurisdictions solely for their help in dealing with the issues of State law.
State ex rel. McLellan v. Cavanaugh 498 A.2d 735 N.H. 1985
We first consider issues raised under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing authority from other jurisdictions solely for their helpfulness in making our own analysis.
State v. Langone 498 A.2d 731 N.H. 1985
We 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. Corey 497 A.2d 1196 N.H. 1985
We 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. Faragi 498 A.2d 723 N.H. 1985
For reasons stated in State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), we consider the defendant’s claim first and independently under the State Constitution, citing decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of courts of other jurisdictions only for their help in analyzing and deciding the State issues.
State v. Camargo 498 A.2d 292 N.H. 1985
We begin, as we must, by first making an independant 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 to our analysis, see Michigan v. Long, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 3476 (1983).
State v. Farnsworth 497 A.2d 835 N.H. 1985
We 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. Barham 495 A.2d 1269 N.H. 1985
We 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. Cimino 493 A.2d 1197 N.H. 1985
We therefore take this opportunity to caution defendants to present a clear record if they wish to invoke the rule in State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), *573 under which we will consider State claims first, citing decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of courts of other jurisdictions solely for their helpfulness in considering the State issues.
State v. Maya 493 A.2d 1139 N.H. 1985
We independently consider his claims first under the Constitution of New Hampshire, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of courts of other jurisdictions for their helpfulness in analyzing and deciding the State issue.
State v. Cote 493 A.2d 1170 N.H. 1985
We will *522 consider the defendant’s contentions first under the Constitution of New Hampshire, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of courts of other jurisdictions for their helpfulness in analyzing and deciding the State issues.
State v. Labonville 492 A.2d 1376 N.H. 1985
We begin as we must by first addressing the State constitutional protections.
State v. Brodeur 493 A.2d 1134 N.H. 1985
We will, consider the defendant’s State constitutional argument l&rst.
State v. Riley 490 A.2d 1362 N.H. 1985
We begin our analysis by noting that while a State under our federal system may provide more protection to its citizens than the United States Constitution requires, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), it may not provide less.
Cagan's, Inc. v. New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration 490 A.2d 1354 N.H. 1985
Because we accept the position of the taxpayers on their claims under the State Constitution, we do *247 not reach the federal claims.
State v. McKenney 489 A.2d 644 N.H. 1985
Since we find the application of article 23 to be dispositive in the defendant’s favor, we do not reach his claims under the Federal Constitution.
State v. Doyle 489 A.2d 639 N.H. 1985
We first address the claims under the State Constitution.
State v. Chaisson 486 A.2d 297 N.H. 1984
We, of course, address the State constitutional issues first.
Breest v. Perrin 484 A.2d 1192 N.H. 1984
State v. Scarborough, 124 N.H. 363, 368, 470 A.2d 909, 913 (1983); see also State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33, 471 A.2d 347, 350-52 (1983).
State v. Shannon 484 A.2d 1164 N.H. 1984
State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. 626, 628, 465 A.2d 919, 920 (1983); compare State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983) (when defendant raises State constitutional claims we will address those claims).
State v. Jones 484 A.2d 1070 N.H. 1984
Defendant’s brief in no way raises the New Hampshire Constitution as a basis for suppressing the confession, but relies on Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a case construing the Federal Constitution, and cases interpreting Miranda.
State v. Portigue 481 A.2d 534 N.H. 1984
Accordingly, there is no reviewable State constitutional claim presented.
Followed State v. Ballou 481 A.2d 260 N.H. 1984
While the result in Theodosopoulos would be the same, we reaffirm that the test is merely “disadvantage.” See State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983) (“the role of the Federal Constitution is to provide the minimum level of national protection”).
State v. Kellenbeck 474 A.2d 1388 N.H. 1984
Because we have found in the defendant’s favor on this issue under part I, article 19, we need not address whether federal law would provide greater protection.
State v. Damiano 474 A.2d 1045 N.H. 1984
In construing the due process clause of the State Constitution, we refer to federal cases for guidance only and do not consider our results bound by those decisions.
State v. Sidebotham 474 A.2d 1377 N.H. 1984
The provisions of our State Constitution may be interpreted so as to independently furnish a basis for protecting personal rights even when it is clear that the guarantees of the Federal Constitution do not grant that same level of protection.
State v. Scarborough 470 A.2d 909 N.H. 1983
Because the defendant has asserted the right to counsel granted by both the State and Federal Constitutions, we look to our own constitution first, using decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only as aids to our analysis.
State v. Fielders 470 A.2d 897 N.H. 1983
Therefore, we will refer to federal cases for guidance in interpreting our State Constitution.
State v. Tapply 470 A.2d 900 N.H. 1983
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 233, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983); see Michigan v. Long, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 3476 (1983).
State v. Berthiaume 470 A.2d 893 N.H. 1983
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983); compare State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. 626, 628, 465 A.2d 919, 920 (1983).