[¶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.
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.
"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.