Marissa Rattee v. Andre Bertolino

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0082, Marissa Rattee v. Andre Bertolino,
the court on May 21, 2015, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs and limited record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
We affirm.

The defendant, Andre Bertolino, appeals the order of the Circuit Court
(Boyle, J.) granting a domestic violence final order of protection to the plaintiff,
Marissa Rattee. See RSA 173-B:5 (2014). The trial court found that the
defendant committed harassment, see RSA 644:4 (2007), by “repeated
unwanted telephone and in-person contacts after being told to desist,” and that
such conduct constituted a credible present threat to the plaintiff’s safety, see
RSA 173-B:5, I, because of her “fear that defendant will appear at her home or
work as he has done.” We construe his brief to argue that the evidence was
insufficient to support the court’s findings.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and
uphold the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in
evidentiary support or tainted by error of law. Hurley v. Hurley, 165 N.H. 749,
750 (2013). It is the burden of the appealing party, here the defendant, to
provide this court with a record sufficient to decide his issues on appeal. See
Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R.
15(3) (“If the moving party intends to argue in the supreme court that a finding
or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, he
shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding
or conclusion.”); Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001)
(rules of appellate practice not relaxed for self-represented litigants). The
defendant failed to provide a transcript of the January 14, 2015 trial court
hearing. Absent a transcript, we must assume that the evidence was sufficient
to support the decision reached. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396
(1997). Accordingly, we review the trial court’s decision for errors of law only,
see id. at 397, and find none.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, and Lynn, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk