Cited by

State v. Fowler, 132 N.H. 540, 545, 567 A.2d 557, 559-60 (1989); State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 633, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986).

Under these circumstances we hold that the constitutional issues have not been preserved for appeal.

In State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 517 A.2d 1163 (1986), we stated that “the defendant must fulfill two preconditions before triggering a State constitutional analysis: first, the defendant must raise the State constitutional issue below; second, the defendant’s brief must specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution.” Id.

We will not review on appeal constitutional issues not presented below.

While the officer’s initial queries into the type of drug used, the method employed, and the amount ingested were follow-up questions germane to determining whether medical care would be required, his subsequent questions pertaining to the location where the drug was used sought only to elicit incriminating evidence and, thus, constituted interrogation.

In order for this court to address a State constitutional issue, “the defendant’s brief must specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution,” which it does not do here.

We consider the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, see State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986), using federal case law only for guidance in our analysis, Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).

State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986), Where an alleged error involves a jury instruction, it is particularly appropriate that we follow this rule.

Dombrowski v. Dombrowski, 131 N.H. 654, 662, 559 A.2d 828, 833 (1989); State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632-33, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986); State v. Laliberte, 124 N.H. 621, 621, 474 A.2d 1025, 1025 (1984).

State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986); State v. Laliberte, 124 N.H. 621, 621-22, 474 A.2d 1025, 1025 (1984).

State v. Sampson supra (citing State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 637, 517 A.2d 1163, 1169 (1986)).

However, Fecteau did not specifically raise a State constitutional issue below, and therefore we will address only *867 the federal constitutional issues.

Normally, we would not address a State constitutional issue on appeal unless it was specifically raised below.

Accordingly, we treat his claim as predicated on federal law.

In reviewing this issue, we look only to the fourth amendment, since the defendant’s brief made no reference to part I, article 19 of the State Constitution.

As we stated in State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 517 A.2d 1163 (1986), “the defendant must fulfill two preconditions before triggering a State constitutional analysis: first, the defendant must raise the State constitutional issue below; second, the defendant’s brief must specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution.” Id.

State v. Fowler, 132 N.H. 540, 545, 567 A.2d 557, 560 (1989); State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986).

State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986); State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983); see State v. King, 131 N.H. 173, 176, 551 A.2d 973, 975 (1988) (State constitutional issue not addressed because relief was available under Federal Constitution).

State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986); State v. Westover, 127 N.H. 130, 131, 497 A.2d 1218, 1219 (1985).

In evaluating whether the outcome was affected by the introduction of the receipt, we consider the other evidence presented at trial.

Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) (police may cure initial Miranda violation by obtaining valid waiver of defendant’s rights prior to commencing further interrogation); State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 517 A.2d 1163 (1986).

Since defense counsel made no reference to part I, article 14, or to any other provision of the *319 State Constitution, we consider the issue solely under the sixth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Since passing reference is insufficient to raise a State claim, see State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986), we treat this issue as arising solely under the fourth and fourteenth amendments.

In the trial court, the defendant did not rest his claim on any tenet of State constitutional law, see State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 633, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986), and he relies here on the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution of the United States, as applied in a trilogy of cases dealing with the conditions under which a defendant who takes the stand in his defense may be impeached by his prior silence.

State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964); State v. Reynolds, 124 N.H. 428, 432, 471 A.2d 1172, 1174 (1984).

*755 In arguing on appeal that all identifications should have been suppressed, the defendant invokes no State constitutional provision, and raises no State issue.

In re Estate of Leonard, 128 N.H. 407, 409, 514 A.2d 822, 823 (1986) *440 (statutory question waived); see also State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986) (brief must specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution to properly raise State constitutional issue).

State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986); see State v. Bradberry, 129 N.H. 68, 522 A.2d 1380 (1986).

Because we have concluded that no State constitutional issue has been adequately preserved for appeal, see State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986), we proceed directly to the federal issue.

Justice Souter cites State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 517 A.2d 1163 (1986) as support for his position.

The defendant’s brief did not “specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution” and thus did not raise a State constitutional claim.

State v. Reynolds, 124 N.H. 428, 432, 471 A.2d 1172, 1173-74 (1984); see also State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632-33, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986).