Cited by

State v. Rodney Portigue, 125 N.H. 352, 362 (1984) (observing that the defendant was induced to stay at the hospital with the police because his children were being examined there, but emphasizing that in that case these “were not conditions created by the police to subject the defendant to continued questioning”).

State v. Rodney Portigue, 125 N.H. 352, 361 (1984) (finding “no reviewable State constitutional claim presented” where “the defendant in his appeal relating to [a certain] issue wholly failed to raise anything but a federal constitutional claim and propositions in State case law relying entirely on federal law”).

For the *712 purpose of determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we also consider facts adduced at trial.

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, supra at 748; see also State v. Rodney Portigue, 125 N.H. 352, 359, 367 (1984) (evidence sufficient to support conviction under RSA 639:3, I, when testimony at trial established that defendant failed to promptly remove child from home and seek medical attention for child after child sustained significant injuries from repetitive physical abuse at hands of defendant’s wife).

threat.” She contends that Plourde’s threat, in 4 combination with certain other circumstances, “foreclosed any rational conclusion that her confession was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.” Although we have never explicitly evaluated the impact of alleged threats of harsher punishment during police interrogation, cf. State v. Rodney Portigue, 125 N.H. 352, 364-65 (1984) (concluding that, under totality of circumstances, officer’s threat of future prosecution did not overbear defendant’s will

The defendant wrote “yes” on the form next to the questions, “Do you understand each of these rights?” and “Understanding these rights are you willing to answer questions?” *764 While compliance with Miranda does not conclusively establish the voluntariness of a later confession, it is one factor that a trial court can consider.

State v. Rodney Portigue, 125 N.H. 352, 360 (1984); see also Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117-18 (1974).

Although compliance with Miranda does not conclusively establish that his confession was voluntary, it is a factor to consider.

to succinctly describe the situation the defendant facets].” State v. Portigue, 125 N.H. 352, 365 (1984) (finding officer’s threat of future prosecution did not overbear defendant’s free will).

An indictment alleging a course of conduct is not duplicitous, however, if continuous acts or omissions may constitute the offense.

Custody has been defined as “that restriction placed on the defendant which, based on the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ constitutes a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.’” State v. Rodney Portigue, 125 N.H. 352, 361, 481 A.2d 534, 540 (1984) (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983) (citation omitted)).

State v. Berger, 125 N.H. 83, 90, 480 A.2d 27, 31 (1984); State v. Rodney Portigue, 125 N.H. 352, 366, 481 A.2d 534, 544 (1984).

See, e.g., Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 (1961); Rogers v. *439 Richmond, 365 U.S. 534 (1961); Blackburn v. Alabama supra; State v. Portigue, 125 N.H. 352, 481 A.2d 534 (1984); State v. Reynolds supra.

Berkemer v. *259 McCarty, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 3148 (1984); Miranda v. Arizona, supra at 444; State v. Rodney Portigue, 125 N.H. 352, 361, 481 A.2d 534, 540 (1984).

B. Wong The defendant attacks the validity of the indictment on the ground that it alleges two separate criminal acts in the alternative, in contravention of the necessary certainty required of indictments by part I, article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and by the *623 sixth amendment of the United States Constitution.