Cited by

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 argument under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

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

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

king agent when the officer initially spoke with him; and (2) violated his State and Federal Constitutional rights by not finding that “[t]he police illegally seized [him] when they reengaged him by asking him questions almost immediately after telling him he was free to go.” We first address the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution and rely on federal law only to aid in our analysis.

We address this issue first 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.

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

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

We first address the defendant’s 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 our analysis.

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 the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

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

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

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

We first address the petitioner’s argument under the State Constitution, citing federal authority only to aid in our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s constitutional arguments 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 now turn to the defendant’s argument that “[p]recluding the proposed cross-examination violated [his] confrontation rights under Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” 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 arguments under the State Constitution, relying upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address Cole’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 cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We address the employee’s due process claims pursuant to the New Hampshire 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 trooper’s argument under the State Constitution and rely on federal law only to aid in our analysis.

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

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

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

19 under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32 (1983), and rely on federal law only to aid in our analysis, id.

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

We first address this argument under the State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

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

Baby K., 143 N.H. at 203-04, 207; see also State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 237 (1983) (concluding that because the defendant prevailed under the State Constitution, we need not reach his federal constitutional claim).

Although we normally address constitutional questions first under the State Constitution and rely on federal law only to aid in our analysis, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33 (1983), because the trial court ruled that the respondents’ activities were protected under the Federal Constitution and did not address the respondents’ arguments under the State Constitution, we first address the parties’ arguments under the Federal Constitution.

We first address the issues under the State Constitution and rely upon 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.

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

As the petitioner brings his claims solely under the New Hampshire Constitution, we rely on federal law only to aid our analysis.

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

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

We first address the defendant’s arguments 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 our analysis.