Cited by

Following our standard practice, we first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address her arguments under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the District’s claims under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We address his arguments under the State Constitution first and rely on federal law only to aid our analysis.

We address his arguments under the State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We first consider his argument under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We address this issue first under the State Constitution, relying on federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address them under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely on federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

Because the defendant raises his claim under both the State and Federal Constitutions, we first address his claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

Both parties agree that the burden at the suppression hearing rested upon the State.

We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

Our policy of deciding issues under the State Constitution before turning to the Federal Constitution is well-established.

We first address the plaintiff’s argument under the State Constitution and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33 (1983); State v. Perry, 166 N.H. 297, 301 (2014).

We first address the parties’ arguments under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first examine the constitutional competency of counsel’s performance under the State Constitution, and rely upon federal case law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the State Constitution, citing federal opinions for guidance only.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We address the father’s due process claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

Because the defendant raises claims under both the State and Federal Constitutions, we first address his claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address the defendants’ arguments under the State Constitution and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We first address the respondent’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We recognize that the New Hampshire Constitution may provide greater protection than the United States Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33 (1983), but “[h]aving the power to interpret some provisions [of the New Hampshire Constitution] as providing greater protection 6 The petitioner also invites us to consider certain cautionary admonitions against the use of a single competency to stand trial standard issued by the Supreme Judicial Court of Ma

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address the issues under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution and rely on federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We address this issue first under the State Constitution, relying on federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the father’s argument under the State Constitution and rely on federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address his claims under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

Thus, to the extent that we rely upon federal law, we do so merely to aid our analysis.

Accordingly, we first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

Accordingly, we look to federal law to aid in our analysis.

We first address the issues under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

State v. Rideout, 143 N.H. 363, 365 (1999); see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32 (1983).

We first address the defendant’s claim under our State Constitution and cite federal cases for guidance only.

Because the defendant has failed to demonstrate on appeal that she preserved her federal constitutional argument, see State v. DeCato, 156 N.H. 570, 573, 938 A.2d 898 (2007), we limit our review to her state constitutional argument and rely upon federal law merely to aid our analysis, see State v. Dewitt, 143 N.H. 24, 33, 719 A.2d 570 (1998); State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 233, 471 A.2d 347 (1983).

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the State’s argument under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.