Cited by

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

ution, and that his statements about the shooting should have been excluded as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” He further argues that “[a]llowing the State to intentionally violate the constitutional rights of an accused in order to elicit incriminating statements is fundamentally unfair and violates due process.” We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We first consider his arguments under the State Constitution, using federal cases only to aid in our analysis.

He argues that there was no information in the affidavit linking the images Brown observed in the garage to the computers Brown said he saw the defendant and his wife using nor was there any information “suggesting [he] stored child pornography in his home or on any computer in his home.” We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We first address Doyle’s claims under our State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We first address the juvenile’s claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We first address Doyle's claims under our State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

RSA 463:15, V. We first address the petitioner’s claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), citing federal opinions for guidance only, id.

We first address his claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), citing federal opinions for guidance only, id.

Because the defendant advances his due process argument under both Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, following familiar practice we consider his state constitutional claims first, referencing federal decisions for guidance only.

We first consider the defendant’s arguments under the State Constitution, using federal cases only to aid our analysis.

Due Process The defendant first argues that the procedures set forth in RSA chapter 135-E “violated his rights under the due process clauses contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution.” We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, citing federal opinions for guidance only.

We first consider the defendant’s constitutional arguments under the State Constitution, referring to federal decisions only for guidance.

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

I first address the constitutionality of RSA 507:7-e, I, as interpreted in DeBenedetto, under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), citing federal opinions for guidance only, see id.

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

We first consider the defendant’s constitutional arguments under the State Constitution, referring to federal decisions only for guidance.

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

We first examine the defendant’s arguments under the State Constitution, using federal cases for guidance only.

We first consider her arguments under the State Constitution, using federal cases only to aid in our analysis.

We first consider the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution, using federal cases only to aid in our analysis.

We first address MeGann’s claims under the State Constitution, citing federal opinions for guidance only.

We first consider his argument under the State Constitution, using federal cases only to aid in our analysis.

Because we determine that the search violated the defendant’s rights under the State Constitution, we need not reach the federal issue.

We first consider the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution, using federal cases only to aid in our analysis.

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

necessarily require a mistrial.” The court ruled that “a curative instruction is appropriate and will cure any problem we’ll have.” Defense counsel elected not to have the court read the curative instruction because “it [would] draw undue attention to a Constitutional infirmity.” *576 We first address the defendant’s claims under the State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

Because the defendant prevails on his state claim, we need not reach the federal issues.

We first address the defendant’s arguments under the State Constitution, citing federal court opinions for guidance only.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only, id.

Because we reverse under the State Constitution, we need not reach the federal issue.

Because we conclude that Boutin prevails under the State Constitution, we need not reach the federal issue.

We first address the defendant’s due process arguments under the State Constitution, citing federal opinions for guidance only.

We first address the defendant’s arguments under the State Constitution, citing federal court opinions for guidance only.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the New Hampshire Constitution, referring to federal authority only to assist in 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 claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), citing opinions from federal and state jurisdictions for guidance only, id.

Assuming, without deciding, that his claims have been preserved, we first address the defendant’s religious freedom argument under the State Constitution, citing federal opinions for guidance only.

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

She further argues that due process requires that she “be provided with the opportunity of an initial hearing and access to the courts, before being sent to a ‘third party process.’ ” We first address her claims under the State Constitution, and cite federal opinions for guidance only.

We first address the claims under the State Constitution, citing federal opinions for guidance only.

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

We first address the defendant’s claim under the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only, id.

We first consider the arguments under the State Constitution, using federal cases 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 due process claim under the State Constitution, citing federal authority for guidance only.

We address the defendant’s argument first under the State Constitution and refer to federal opinions 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 cite federal opinions for guidance only, id.

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

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