Cited by

see RSA 625:9, II(b) (providing that a violation does not constitute a crime); State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 26-28 (1993) (setting forth the analysis for determining whether a statutorily defined penalty is criminal or civil in nature, and holding that certain traffic violations are civil in nature); cf. State v. Lake Winnipesaukee Resort, 159 N.H. 42, 49 (2009) (suggesting that speedy trial analysis is inappropriate for a

As a preliminary matter, we address DOS’s argument that, because the habitual offender certification is a civil designation, see State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 28 (1993), it is not subject to annulment pursuant to RSA 651:5.

However, like the Supreme Court, we have used the test a number of times for double jeopardy purposes, see In re 1994 Chevrolet Cavalier, 142 N.H. 705 (1998); State v. Drewry, 141 N.H. 514 (1996); State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23 (1993), and it accords with our focus in ex post facto analysis on whether a law increases the punishment for an offense.

RSA chapter 265, however, was enacted as part of the motor vehicle laws and is a distinct body of law that governs the operation of motor vehicles and establishes the rules of the road.

Even assuming the instant action is criminal under the test enunciated in State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 26 (1993), and that this renders the speedy trial analysis appropriate, the speedy trial right would not attach until this action commenced.

Because, on the issue before us, federal law provides the defendant no greater protection than does the State Constitution, we will not undertake a separate federal analysis.

We consider the defendant’s argument first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), relying upon federal decisions only for guidance, see State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 26 (1993).

The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions protect an accused “against multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” State *920 v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 25, 622 A.2d 1245, 1246 (1993); see U.S. CONST. amend.

State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 26, 622 A.2d 1245, 1247 (1993) (following United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1980)); see Hudson v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 488, 493 (1997) (reaffirming double jeopardy analysis under Ward).

The double jeopardy clauses of the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions protect an accused “against multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 25, 622 A.2d 1245, 1246 (1993).

Part I, article 16 of the New Hampshire Constitution protects an accused against “multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 25, 622 A.2d 1245, 1246 (1993).

State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 26, 622 A.2d 1245, 1246 (1993); see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).

We will independently address the issue raised under the State Constitution, referring to federal cases for guidance only.

We will address the issue raised under the State Constitution independently, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), referring to federal cases only “for their guidance in analyzing and deciding the State issue[].” State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 26, 622 A.2d 1245, 1246 (1993); see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).

*65 The double jeopardy clause of the New Hampshire Constitution protects against “multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 25, 622 A.2d 1245, 1246 (1993).

To determine whether the administrative license suspension hearing is civil or criminal, we first look to the intent of the legislature.

The double jeopardy clause of the New Hampshire Constitution prohibits multiple prosecution and multiple punishment for the same offense.

Cf State v. Fitzgerald, 137 N.H. 23, 622 A.2d 1245 (1993) (traffic violation under RSA chapter 265 not “criminal” for double jeopardy purposes in part because violation exists outside Criminal Code).