See id. ; see, e.g., In re Search Warrant for Records of AT & T, 170 N.H. 111, 115, 165 A.3d 711 (2017) (holding that certain language in a prior case was "dicta" and, therefore, "not controlling" because those "comments were unnecessary to the decision"); State v. Burris, 170 N.H. 802, 810-11, 187 A.3d 830 (2018). Instead we stated that the appellant had failed to address aspects of our state constitutional inquiry, and "[w]ithout adequate appellate argument, we decline[d] to address the [appellant]'s argument any further."
Further, we reject the State's contention that a defendant's statement can be incriminating, and thus subject to constitutional protection, only if the statement itself establishes the defendant engaged in "criminal activity." See, e.g., id. ; State v. Burris, 170 N.H. 802, 811, 187 A.3d 830 (2018) (explaining that under the State Constitution, "by definition, self-incrimination contemplates the use of the defendant's statements to aid in establishing the guilt of the defendant" (brackets, emphasis, and quotation omitted)). See generally N.H. CONST. pt. 1, art. 15 ("No subject shall be ... compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself."); U.S. CONST. amends.
The privilege against self-incrimination permits an individual to refuse to testify against herself at a criminal trial in which she is a defendant, and also privileges her not to answer official questions put to her in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate her in future criminal proceedings. State v. Burris, 170 N.H. 802, 806, 187 A.3d 830 (2018). The purpose of this right is to prevent the compulsion and subsequent use of the defendant's testimony to establish her guilt in a criminal case.