State v. Glenn

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Heredia

    2024 N.H. 31 (N.H. 2024)

    [¶11] "The issue of double jeopardy presents a question of constitutional law, which we review de novo." State v. Glenn, 167 N.H. 171, 178 (2014). We first address the defendant's claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis.

  2. State v. Reinholz

    169 N.H. 22 (N.H. 2016)   Cited 5 times
    In State v. Reinholz, 169 N.H. 22, 140 A.3d 509 (2016), we held that Rule 20(a)(4) did not require the State to have brought two pattern AFSA charges against the defendant at the same time that it brought two charges for individual acts of sexual assault, even though the pattern charges "spanned the same time period, concerned the same victim, and involved the same types of sexual acts" as the individual acts.

    Thus, the defendant asserts, the State was required to bring the two pattern AFSA charges at the time of his first trial, and its failure to do so requires that his convictions on the two pattern AFSA charges be vacated. SeeState v. Glenn, 167 N.H. 171, 177–78, 107 A.3d 651 (2014) (vacating defendant's convictions under mandatory joinder rule). We disagree.

  3. State v. Sanborn

    168 N.H. 400 (N.H. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    "Because the Federal Constitution['s double jeopardy clause] provides no greater protection than the State Constitution under these circumstances, we reach the same result under the Federal Constitution as we do under the State Constitution." State v. Glenn, 167 N.H. 171, 179, 107 A.3d 651 (2014). We also note that although the defendant raises Baillargeon in the context of his double jeopardy arguments, we do not view that case as part of our double jeopardy jurisprudence.