Brenda Converse v. John LaFratta

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0516, Brenda Converse v. John LaFratta,
the court on December 23, 2016, issued the following order:

Having considered the defendant’s brief and the 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, John LaFratta, appeals the order of the Circuit Court
(Gorman, J.) granting a domestic violence final protective order to the plaintiff,
Brenda Converse. See RSA 173-B:5, I(a) (Supp. 2016). The defendant argues
that the trial court’s findings are unsupported by the evidence and contrary to
the evidence, and that the court erred by precluding him from introducing
exculpatory evidence.

It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of
matters not raised in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H.
248, 250 (2004). 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, as
well as to demonstrate that he raised his issues in the trial court. Id.; 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 hearing. Absent a
transcript, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that he raised his
evidentiary issues at trial, and we must assume that the evidence was
sufficient to support the trial court’s findings. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H.
396, 396 (1997). We review the court’s order for errors of law only. See id. at
397. Based upon this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s findings
are insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the issuance of a protective
order. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk