Alison Baker v. James Acheson, Jr.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0144, Alison Baker v. James Acheson, Jr.,
the court on August 1, 2017, issued the following order:

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

The defendant, James Acheson, Jr., appeals an order of the Circuit Court
(Pendleton, J.) granting a domestic violence final order of protection to the
plaintiff, Alison Baker. See RSA 173-B:5 (Supp. 2016). The defendant argues
that the evidence was insufficient to show that he committed an act of abuse
by slashing the tires on the plaintiff’s motor vehicle.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and
uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they are lacking in
evidentiary support or tainted by error of law. Achille v. Achille, 167 N.H. 706,
715 (2015). We accord considerable weight to the trial court’s judgments on
the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given testimony. Id. at
715-16. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing
party, in this case, the plaintiff. See id. at 716.

To obtain relief under RSA chapter 173-B, the plaintiff must show
“abuse” by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. “Abuse” is defined in RSA
173-B:1 to include the commission or attempted commission of one or more of
several criminal acts constituting a credible present threat to the plaintiff’s
safety, including destruction of property as defined in RSA 634:2 (2016).
See RSA 173-B:1, I(e) (Supp. 2016).

The record shows that the plaintiff and defendant dated for
approximately one year before ending their relationship in the summer or fall of
2016. The plaintiff testified that when she and the defendant were dating, she
would typically leave her car at a Park & Ride on the route to wherever they
were going, and that the defendant would typically drive them in his car to
their destination.

The plaintiff testified that on January 21, 2017, she attended a party
with a friend she was dating. She met the friend at a Park & Ride in Epping
and left her car there. She was not sure whether she had ever left her car in
the same Park & Ride when dating the defendant. However, the defendant
testified that he knew the plaintiff would be going to the party that night
because he had been invited to the same party. He declined the invitation
because he knew that the plaintiff planned to attend. When the plaintiff
returned from the party at approximately 1:00 a.m., she found that all four
tires on her vehicle were flat and had been slashed. The next day, the plaintiff
reported the damage to the police. The police investigated and found that no
other vehicles in the Park & Ride that night had been damaged.

The plaintiff testified that when she and the defendant ended their
relationship, the defendant asked her to return everything he had given her or
paid for, including the tires on her car. She testified that she returned
everything, except for the tires. When she refused to return the tires and told
him “that’s ridiculous,” the defendant called her a thief.

On appeal, the defendant first argues that the evidence was insufficient
to support a finding that he slashed the plaintiff’s tires. We disagree. Based
upon this testimony, we conclude that a reasonable person could have found,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed destruction
of property as defined by RSA 634:2. See Achille, 167 N.H. at 715-16. We note
that the defendant does not argue that, under these circumstances, his
conduct did not constitute a present credible threat to the plaintiff’s safety.

In light of our decision, we need not address the defendant’s argument
that there was no other finding of abuse sufficient to support the protective
order. We reject his argument that the court’s order requiring him to pay the
plaintiff for the damaged tires was based upon an erroneous finding that he
was responsible for the damage.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2