Cited by

In Miranda, the Supreme Court held that, if an accused is in police custody, has been informed of his rights, and “indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.” Lynch, 169 N.H. at 693 (quotation omitted); State v. Laurie, 135 N.H. 438, 442 (1992) (deciding under the State Constitution that whenever a suspect in custody exercises his option to cut off questioning, the police must scrupulously honor that request

In a later case, Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975), the Court explained that a defendant’s expression of his desire to remain silent does not “create[ ] a per se prohibition on all future questioning,” State v. Laurie, 135 N.H. 438, 441 (1992).

We have similarly concluded that whenever a suspect in custody exercises his option to cut off questioning, the police must scrupulously honor the suspect’s desire to remain silent.

B. Miranda The defendant next contends that his State and federal constitutional rights were violated because the police failed to honor scrupulously his invocation of his right to remain silent.

The guiding principle is, as the trial court noted, whether the rule set forth in Moran “adequately protects a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination under [P]art I, [A]rticle 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution.” State v. Laurie, 135 N.H. 438, 442 (1992).

In State v. Laurie, even where the police conducted three actual interviews over five days, we did not find that the police had exercised coercive tactics to induce a confession.

Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (1986); State v. Laurie, 135 N.H. 438, cert.

Under our State Constitution, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused’s statements were voluntary.

Part I, Article 15 of our State Constitution requires the State to prove that the defendant’s statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.

“We will not overturn the trial court’s decision unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, as viewed in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Laurie, 135 N.H. 438, 445, 606 A.2d 1077, 1080 (quotation omitted), cert.

Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284, 294-95 (1986); State v. Laurie, 135 N.H. 438, 442, 606 A.2d 1077, 1079, cert.

We affirmed that conviction in State v. Laurie, 135 N.H. 438, 606 A.2d 1077, cert.

Under part I, article 15 of our State Constitution, the State must prove the voluntariness of the defendant’s statements beyond a reasonable doubt, a more stringent standard than the preponderance of the evidence standard required under the Federal Constitution.

Right to Remain Silent The defendant argues that even if his confession was voluntary, the police failed to scrupulously honor his request for silence when, toward the end of the taped interrogation, he said repeatedly, “I want to go home.” See State v. Laurie, 135 N.H. 438, 442, 606 A.2d 1077, 1079, cert.