State of New Hampshire v. Louise Juneau-Kurylak
State of New Hampshire v. Louise Juneau-Kurylak, No. 2016-0378 (N.H. Jan. 13, 2017).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2016-0378, State of New Hampshire v. Louise Juneau-Kurylak, the court on January 13, 2017, issued the following order: Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Bean v. Red Oak Property Management, Inc. 151 N.H. 248
- In re Birmingham 154 N.H. 51
- Atwood v. Owens 142 N.H. 396
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2016-0378, State of New Hampshire v. Louise
Juneau-Kurylak, the court on January 13, 2017, issued the
following order:
Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The defendant, Louise Juneau-Kurylak, appeals an order of the Circuit
Court (Morrison, J.) finding her guilty of speeding. See RSA 265:60 (Supp. 2016).
We construe her brief to argue that: (1) the speed limit was posted in violation of
state and federal law; (2) the trial court erred by denying her discovery request for
a copy of the “engineering and traffic survey” supporting the posted speed limit;
(3) the State “never conducted the required engineering study”; (4) the speed at
which she was traveling was reasonable and proper; (5) RSA 265:60, II conflicts
with RSA 265:60, I; and (6) “[t]he adoption and retention of the 55 MPH speed
limit was and is arbitrary, and in violation of law.”
It is a long-standing rule that a party may not have judicial review of issues
she did not raise in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248,
250 (2004). The appealing party has the burden on appeal to provide a record
that is sufficient to decide the issues she is raising and to demonstrate that she
raised those issues in the trial court. Id. Absent a transcript, we assume the
evidence was sufficient to support the result reached by the trial court. Id.
These rules are not relaxed for self-represented parties. See In the Matter of
Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).
In this case, the defendant has not supplied a transcript of the hearing
before the trial court. Therefore, we assume that the evidence was sufficient to
support the trial court’s findings. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. We examine the
trial court’s order for errors of law only, Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 397
(1997), and find none.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk