Cited by

State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 178 (1991) (observing that although the defendant appeared to understand his rights and that although he acknowledged them, he was never asked whether he understood them).

Because, she argues, the procedure used by the police to obtain her consent in this case had a “potential for abuse,” we should extend our previous holding barring the use of evidence obtained in violation of Miranda’s safeguards to supply probable cause for search warrants, see State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 184 (1991), to find that it also creates a presumption of coercion in our analysis of whether a defendant’s consent to search is voluntary.

This court, construing Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution, has specifically interpreted the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine to apply in the Miranda context, “holding that certain physical evidentiary fruits derived from a Miranda violation are inadmissible at trial.” State v. Barkus, 152 N.H. 701, 706 (2005); see State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 180-84 (1991).

Here, the defendant does not dispute that, after he invoked his right to remain silent, he initiated the conversation with Trooper Encarnacao “in the ordinary dictionary sense of that word.” State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 177 (1991) (quotation omitted).

See, e.g., Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004); Fellers v. United States, 540 U.S. 519 (2004); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984); Henry, 447 U.S. 264; Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963); State v. Panarello, 157 N.H. 204 (2008); State n Roache, 148 N.H. 45 (2002); State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172 (1991); State v. Baillargeon, 124 N.H. 355 (1983).

Thus, applying the exclusionary rule in this case would deprive the police of the benefit of the products of their lawful conduct, whereas the rule is intended to deter unlawful conduct.

This court, construing Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution, has specifically interpreted the doctrine to apply in the Miranda context, holding that certain physical evidentiary fruits derived from a Miranda violation are inadmissible at trial.

We must begin our inquiry with the presumption that a defendant did not waive his rights.

State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 180, 184 (1991) (because evidence obtained in violation of Miranda safeguards may not be used to supply probable cause for search warrants, evidence obtained from tainted search warrant is inadmissible at trial).

Accordingly, to overcome the presumption that a defendant would not normally forfeit this constitutional protection, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived this right.

State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 180, 601 A.2d 678, 683 (1991); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88 (1963).

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, using federal decisions only to the extent that they may aid our analysis.

State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 176, 601 A.2d 678, 680 (1991); see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).

While we do not *387 dispute that deterrence of police misconduct is a central aim of the exclusionary rule, see State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 181, 601 A.2d 678, 683 (1991), we disagree that it is the rule’s sole purpose.

In order to introduce a defendant’s statements made during custodial interrogation, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant “knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights.” State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 176, 601 A.2d 678, 680 (1991).

State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 176, 601 A.2d 678, 681 (1991); see also State v. Lewis, 129 N.H. 787, 796-97, 533 A.2d 358, 364 (1987) (Miranda imposed no obligation on police where defendant, who was not in custody, requested a lawyer); State v. Sheila Portigue, 125 N.H. 338, 345, 480 A.2d 896, 900-01 (1984) (police need not honor defendant’s a

The exclusionary rule “serves the objective of deterring future unlawful police conduct by denying the police the benefit of all of *569 the products of that conduct.” State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 181, 601 A.2d 678, 683 (1991) (citations omitted).

Because the Federal Constitution is not more protective in this area than our State Constitution, see Carson v. Maurer, 120 N.H. 925, 932, 424 A.2d 825, 831 (1980), we rely on the State Constitution, adverting to federal law “only as an aid to our analysis.” State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 176, 601 A.2d 678, 680 (1991) (quotation omitted).

We analyze her argument under the State Constitution, referring to federal law only as an aid in our analysis.

Because the Federal Constitution offers no greater protection than our State Constitution under its equal protection provi *222 sions, see Carson v. Maurer, 120 N.H. 925, 932, 424 A.2d 825, 831 (1980), we rely on our State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), and use federal case law “only as an aid to our analysis.” State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 176, 601 A.2d 678, 680 (1991).

In accord with State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 471 A.2d 347 (1983), we first address the State constitutional claims and *111 refer to federal case law only to aid our analysis.

We refer to cases decided under the sixth amendment only to aid our State constitutional analysis.

State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 176, 601 A.2d 678, 680 (1991); see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).

*662 We have considered the various rationales discussed in the Supreme Court’s decisions from Roberts to White, see State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 176, 601 A.2d 678, 680 (1991), and conclude that under part I, article 15, Robert Sr.’s confessions that inculpate the defendant must possess “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66.

The trial court’s determinations with regard to this matter will be upheld “unless, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 176, 601 A.2d 678, 680 (1991).

In accordance with our holding in State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 471 A.2d 347 (1983), we first consider the defendant’s claims under our State Constitution, and look to federal case law only to aid in our analysis, State v. Gravel, 135 N.H. 172, 176, 601 A.2d 678, 680 (1991); Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).