state constitutional claim in New Hampshire

2009Where the plaintiff has raised both state and federal constitutional claims, we address the plaintiff’s state constitutional claim first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only, see id. at 232-33 .

2009Where the plaintiff has raised both state and federal constitutional claims, we address the plaintiff’s state constitutional claim first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983), and cite federal opinions for guidance only, see id. at 232-33 .

2019Specifically, he argues that trial counsel should have retained a second accident reconstruction expert to support the defense’s theory of pure accident. 5 In order to trigger a State constitutional analysis, “the defendant must raise the State constitutional issue below” and “the defendant’s brief must specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution.” State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632 (1986).

2019Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632 (1986) (regarding requisites for preserving a state constitutional claim for our review).

1994State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594 , 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

1994State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594 , 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

1991Because defendant did not rely on any provision of the New Hampshire Constitution in his motion to suppress, thereby preserving a State constitutional claim, see State v. Westover, 127 N.H. 130, 131 , 497 A.2d 1218, 1219 (1985), we address the issues raised with reference to the federal constitutional principles relied on by our previous out-of-court identification cases.

1991Because defendant did not rely on any provision of the New Hampshire Constitution in his motion to suppress, thereby preserving a State constitutional claim, see State v. Westover, 127 N.H. 130, 131 , 497 A.2d 1218, 1219 (1985), we address the issues raised with reference to the federal constitutional principles relied on by our previous out-of-court identification cases.

2025See In the Matter of Kempton & Kempton, 167 N.H. 785, 793 (2015) (concluding that respondent’s “mere reference to ‘due process’” was insufficient to preserve state constitutional claim for review).

2016See In the Matter of Kempton & Kempton, 167 N.H. 785, 793 (2015) (concluding that respondent’s “mere reference to ‘due process’ ” at a hearing and in a motion was insufficient to preserve state constitutional claim for review).

2021See State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 285 (2010) (explaining that, in order to preserve a state constitutional claim, the defendant must “raise it in the trial court” and “specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution in his brief”).

2016To “preserve a state constitutional claim, the defendant must: (1) raise it in the trial court; and (2) specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution in his brief.” State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 285 (2010).

2015“To preserve a state constitutional claim, the defendant must: (1) raise it in the trial court; and (2) specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution in his brief.” State v. Lamarche, 157 N.H. 337, 340 (2008).

2011See State v. LaMarche, 157 N.H. 337, 340 (2008).

2008State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301, 305 (2007).

2008See State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301, 305 (2007).

2001We refer to decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions as aids in our analysis, see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).

1985See Michigan v. Long, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 3475-76 (1983).

1998See State v. Ramos, 131 N.H. 276, 281 , 553 A.2d 275, 278-79 (1988) (to trigger a State constitutional analysis, the constitutional provision must be raised in brief).

1998See State v. Ramos, 131 N.H. 276, 281 , 553 A.2d 275, 278-79 (1988) (to trigger a State constitutional analysis, the constitutional provision must be raised in brief).

1993The defendant must satisfy 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.” State v. Fowler, 132 N.H. 540, 545 , 567 A.2d 557, 560 (1989) (quotation omitted).

1993The defendant must satisfy 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.” State v. Fowler, 132 N.H. 540, 545 , 567 A.2d 557, 560 (1989) (quotation omitted).

2025State v. Kuchman, 168 N.H. 779, 794 (2016).

2022“In keeping with our long-standing policy not to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case,” State v. Berrocales, 141 N.H. 262, 264 (1996) (quotation omitted), we do not engage in a State constitutional analysis here because it would otherwise involve us in a threshold determination of federal constitutional law.

2019Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632 (1986) (regarding requisites for preserving a state constitutional claim for our review).

2017Why don’t you tell me what happened on this particular date, sir?” The defendant did not object to the court’s instruction, and he presented his account of the September 2, 2016 incident. 2 Assuming, without deciding, that the defendant preserved a state constitutional issue for review, but see State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632 (1986) (to preserve a state constitutional claim, the defendant must raise it in the trial court and specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution in his brief); State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999) (rules of preservation are not relaxed for a se

2015Cf. Cross v. Brown, 148 N.H. 485, 485, 487-88 (2002) (holding that appellant’s argument in interlocutory appeal that she was entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in criminal proceeding was not preserved when she failed to raise this claim in the criminal proceeding).

2015See In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 291 (2006).

2013We note that “we have not adopted, and neither party argues that we should adopt, Crawford as applicable to claims under the State Constitution.” State v. Legere, 157 N.H. 746, 750 (2008).

2009We recognize that “arbitrary or unreasonable restrictions which substantially deprive the owner of the economically viable use of his land in order to benefit the public in some way constitute a taking within the meaning of our New Hampshire Constitution requiring the payment of just compensation.” Burrows v. City of Keene, 121 N.H. 590, 598 (1981) (quotation omitted).

2007See Stratton, 132 N.H. at 454 (upholding prosecution on six indictments for possession of six different firearms by a convicted felon because “proof of the elements of the crimes as charged [would] in actuality require a difference in evidence”); see also State v. Sanchez, 152 N.H. 625, 630 (2005).

2007See Stratton, 132 N.H. at 454 , 567 A.2d 986 (upholding prosecution on six indictments for possession of six different firearms by a convicted felon because "proof of the elements of the crimes as charged [would] in actuality require a difference in evidence"); see also State v. Sanchez, 152 N.H. 625, 630 , 883 A.2d 292 (2005).

2007See Stratton, 132 N.H. at 454 (upholding prosecution on six indictments for possession of six different firearms by a convicted felon because “proof of the elements of the crimes as charged [would] in actuality require a difference in evidence”); see also State v. Sanchez, 152 N.H. 625, 630 (2005).

2007See Stratton, 132 N.H. at 454 , 567 A.2d 986 (upholding prosecution on six indictments for possession of six different firearms by a convicted felon because "proof of the elements of the crimes as charged [would] in actuality require a difference in evidence"); see also State v. Sanchez, 152 N.H. 625, 630 , 883 A.2d 292 (2005).

2007State v. MacElman, 154 N.H. 304, 310 (2006).

2004The Alabama legislature’s “[consistent failure” to comply with the State constitutional requirement of decennial apportionment had created “crazy-quilts completely lacking in rationality.” Id. at 568, 570 .

2002See State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231 (1983); State v. Pliskaner, 128 N.H. 486, 488 (1986).

2002State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33 (1983). ‘We need not conduct a separate federal constitutional analysis because our State Constitution affords the defendant greater protection than does the Federal Constitution in this area.” State v. Aubuchont, 147 N.H. 142, 146 (2001).