Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Hampshire courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of New Hampshire v. Bryan Magagreen2 sentences2018See State v. Maga , 166 N.H. 279 , 282, 96 A.3d 934 (2014). 2018See State v. Maga , 166 N.H. 279 , 282, 96 A.3d 934 (2014). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Munozgreen2 sentences2012The defendant argues that “[t]he New Hampshire right must be at least as extensive as the Confrontation Clause rights described in Crawford, Melendez-Diaz, and Bullcoming-, however, given the greater precision of the New Hampshire Constitution, it-should be interpreted as more expansive.” “We have not, however, adopted the Crawford analysis as applicable in this State.” State v. Munoz, 157 N.H. 143, 148 (2008). 2012The defendant argues that “[t]he New Hampshire right must be at least as extensive as the Confrontation Clause rights described in Crawford, Melendez-Diaz, and Bullcoming-, however, given the greater precision of the New Hampshire Constitution, it-should be interpreted as more expansive.” “We have not, however, adopted the Crawford analysis as applicable in this State.” State v. Munoz, 157 N.H. 143, 148 (2008). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Petersgreen2 sentences2012The defendant’s assertion that the New Hampshire Constitution’s Confrontation Clause protection is more expansive than the Crawford rule relies entirely upon our observation in State v. Peters, 133 N.H. 791, 794 (1991), that “[t]he language of the New Hampshire Constitution's Confrontation Clause] is the more precise of the two, in that it explicitly provides what the Federal Constitution has been interpreted to mean.” The defendant, however, does not offer argument under any standard other than the federal standard regarding the violation of his rights under the State Constitution, see Munoz, 2012The defendant’s assertion that the New Hampshire Constitution’s Confrontation Clause protection is more expansive than the Crawford rule relies entirely upon our observation in State v. Peters, 133 N.H. 791, 794 (1991), that “[t]he language of the New Hampshire Constitution's Confrontation Clause] is the more precise of the two, in that it explicitly provides what the Federal Constitution has been interpreted to mean.” The defendant, however, does not offer argument under any standard other than the federal standard regarding the violation of his rights under the State Constitution, see Munoz, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ayergreen2 sentences2008We have not, however, adopted the Crawford analysis as applicable in this State, see State v. Ayer, 154 N.H. 500, 511 (2006), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 63 (2007), and the defendant does not argue that we should do so here. 2008We have not, however, adopted the Crawford analysis as applicable in this State, see State v. Ayer, 154 N.H. 500, 511 (2006), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 63 (2007), and the defendant does not argue that we should do so here. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mahergreen2 sentences2007After Crawford , “a declarant’s ‘testimonial’ out-of-court statement is not admissible under the Confrontation Clause unless (1) the declarant testifies, or (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination and the declarant is unavailable, or (3) the evidence is admitted for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.” United States v. Maher, 454 F. 3d 13, 19-20 (1st Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). *126 Under the Crawford analysis as outlined in Maher , we must first determine whether Houston’s confession is a “testimonial” statement. 2007After Crawford , “a declarant’s ‘testimonial’ out-of-court statement is not admissible under the Confrontation Clause unless (1) the declarant testifies, or (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination and the declarant is unavailable, or (3) the evidence is admitted for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.” United States v. Maher, 454 F. 3d 13, 19-20 (1st Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). *126 Under the Crawford analysis as outlined in Maher , we must first determine whether Houston’s confession is a “testimonial” statement. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences2019Because we have not adopted the Crawford analysis under the State Constitution, and the defendant neither argues that we should do so now nor addresses our applicable Confrontation Clause test, namely, that of Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56 , 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), overruled by Crawford , 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , we will not consider the admissibility of the inventory form under the New Hampshire Constitution. 2019Because we have not adopted the Crawford analysis under the State Constitution, and the defendant neither argues that we should do so now nor addresses our applicable Confrontation Clause test, namely, that of Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56 , 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), overruled by Crawford , 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , we will not consider the admissibility of the inventory form under the New Hampshire Constitution. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2019Because we have not adopted the Crawford analysis under the State Constitution, and the defendant neither argues that we should do so now nor addresses our applicable Confrontation Clause test, namely, that of Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56 , 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), overruled by Crawford , 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , we will not consider the admissibility of the inventory form under the New Hampshire Constitution. 2019Because we have not adopted the Crawford analysis under the State Constitution, and the defendant neither argues that we should do so now nor addresses our applicable Confrontation Clause test, namely, that of Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56 , 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), overruled by Crawford , 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , we will not consider the admissibility of the inventory form under the New Hampshire Constitution. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Brian Watson
green
2 sentences2019State v. Watson , 170 N.H. 720 , 728, 185 A.3d 845 (2018). 2019State v. Watson , 170 N.H. 720 , 728, 185 A.3d 845 (2018). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Davis v. Washington
green
2 sentences2007While it refrained from providing a comprehensive definition of testimonial statements in Crawford , the Supreme Court recently clarified its definition in Davis v. Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006). 2007While it refrained from providing a comprehensive definition of testimonial statements in Crawford , the Supreme Court recently clarified its definition in Davis v. Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.