Cited by
Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Marti, 732 A.2d 414.
-
State v. Cherry
2026 N.H. 22
N.H. 2026
[¶35] Although we reverse because of the erroneous admission of firearms evidence, we will address the defendant’s remaining arguments to the extent that they are preserved because: (1) they are likely to arise again on remand, see State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 611 (1999) (in the interest of judicial economy, we will address issues likely to arise on remand); and (2) if the defendant is correct that the State presented insufficient evidence as a matter of law on the sale of a controlled drug cha
-
State v. Patrick Eschenbrenner
126 A.3d 1186
N.H. 2015
State v. Currier, 148 N.H. 203, 207 (2002) (recognizing that Part I, Article 15 is “at least as protective of the defendant’s rights” as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution); State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 611 (1999) (same for Sixth Amendment).
- State v. Fletcher 965 A.2d 1000 N.H. 2009
-
State v. Abram
941 A.2d 576
N.H. 2008
In analyzing the defendant’s due process claims, we look first to the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 611 (1999), and cite “decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only for the purpose of aiding our State constitutional analysis,” State v. Cannuli, 143 N.H. 149, 151 (1998) (quotation omitted).
-
State v. Evans
839 A.2d 8
N.H. 2003
State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 616-17 (1999); see also State v. Cassell, 129 N.H. 22, 24 (1986).
-
State v. Cook
813 A.2d 480
N.H. 2002
In State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608 (1999), we upheld a jury instruction that explained to the jury, “with respect to each of the charged offenses corroboration of the testimony of the victim is not required.” Id.
-
State v. Patten
813 A.2d 497
N.H. 2002
“Reversal is not warranted unless the charge, as a whole, does not fairly cover the issues of law of the case.” State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 617 (1999) (quotations omitted).
-
State v. Gelinas
790 A.2d 138
N.H. 2002
When a defendant alleges that an instruction is erroneous, we evaluate it “in the context of the trial court’s whole charge.” State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 617 (1999) (quotation omitted).
-
State v. Fuller
785 A.2d 408
N.H. 2001
Reversal is not warranted unless the charge, as a whole, does not fairly cover the issues of láw of the case.” State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 617 (1999) (quotations and citations omitted).
-
State v. Marti
784 A.2d 1193
N.H. 2001
State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 615 (1999) (Marti II).
-
State v. Woodard
769 A.2d 379
N.H. 2001
To satisfy the requirements of the New Hampshire Constitution, the indictment must be specific enough to provide notice to the defendant, protection against double jeopardy, and the reliability of a unanimous jury verdict.
-
State v. Tucker
765 A.2d 1058
N.H. 2001
court concluded that the “bribery statement was a spontaneous response to routine booking questions, and not the product of interrogation.” “We analyze the defendant’s constitutional claims first under the New Hampshire Constitution, referencing decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only for the purpose of aiding our State constitutional analysis.’-’ State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 611, 732 A.2d 414, 417 (1999) (quotation, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).
-
State v. Lavallee
765 A.2d 671
N.H. 2000
we do not engage in a separate federal analysis.” State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 611, 732 A.2d 414, 417 (1999) (citations omitted).
-
State v. Laurent
744 A.2d 598
N.H. 1999
we do not engage in a separate federal analysis.” State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 611, 732 A.2d 414, 417 (1999) (quotation, citations, brackets, and ellipsis omitted); see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983).