State of New Hampshire v. Parker Wright

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0235, State of New Hampshire v. Parker
Wright, the court on November 28, 2017, issued the following
order:

Having considered the memoranda of law 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, Parker Wright, appeals his conviction for disorderly
conduct, see RSA 644:2, I (2016), following a bench trial (Rappa, J.). The
defendant was charged after he jumped off the DiCenzo Bridge into the
Pemigewasset River in Plymouth. He argues that: (1) it is not illegal to jump off
the DiCenzo Bridge; (2) the charging officer didn’t see him jump; (3) the
witnesses who reported the incident didn’t see him jump; (4) the only witness
who testified at trial that he saw Wright jump off the bridge also testified that
Wright’s life was not placed in danger. The defendant also contends that there
was “no reasonable evidence [to] support” the fine imposed and the amount of
restitution that he was ordered to pay.

As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden to provide this
court with a record sufficient to decide the issues that he is raising on appeal
and to demonstrate that he raised them in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak
Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004). These rules are not relaxed for self-
represented parties. See In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H.
51, 56-57 (2006).

RSA 644:2, I, provides that a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if he
“knowingly or purposely creates a condition which is hazardous to himself or
another in a public place by any action which serves no legitimate purpose.” In
this case, the defendant has not supplied a transcript of the hearing before the
trial court. We note that he concedes in his memorandum of law that he
jumped from the DiCenzo Bridge into the Pemigewasset River on February 26,
2016. The limited record before us also contains a breakdown of the amount of
restitution that the defendant was ordered to pay, and establishes that he was
authorized to perform community service to satisfy the fine and assessment
imposed by the court. See RSA 644:2, VI (2016) (disorderly conduct classified
as misdemeanor if offense continues after request to desist; otherwise it is a
violation); RSA 651:2, IV(a) (2016) (amount of fine imposed upon individual
following conviction of violation may not exceed $1000).
 Each of the issues that the defendant raises on appeal contains a factual
component. Absent a transcript, we assume the evidence was sufficient to
support the trial court’s findings. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250; see also State v.
Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 247 (2009) (trier of fact in best position to measure
persuasiveness and credibility of evidence and not compelled to believe even
uncontroverted evidence). We therefore 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, Lynn, Bassett, and Hantz Marconi, JJ.,
concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2