Colleen Smith & a. v. John Freilich

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0588, Colleen Smith & a. v. John Freilich,
the court on March 30, 2018, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs, 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, John Freilich, appeals a small claim judgment issued by
the Circuit Court (Gordon, J.) in favor of the plaintiffs, Colleen Smith and Scott
Smith. We construe his brief to contend that the trial court erred by: (1)
adjourning the trial without allowing him to address the evidence presented
during a view of the plaintiffs’ motor vehicle, thereby violating his right to a fair
trial, to due process, and to be heard under the Federal Constitution and this
court’s rules, including the Code of Judicial Conduct, see Sup. Ct. R. 38; (2)
accepting “tainted, corrupted, and/or compromised evidence” in the form of the
vehicle; (3) accepting evidence of “faint marks” when the complaint alleged “deep
scratches”; (4) allowing the judge to act as “an expert witness of the plaintiffs” by
“bas[ing] his decision solely on his interpretation of the evidence”; (5) finding that
the vehicle was “brand new”; and (6) considering the vehicle’s age in reaching its
decision.

It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of issues
they did not raise in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248,
250 (2004). It is the appealing party’s burden on appeal to provide a record that
is sufficient to decide the issues he is raising and to demonstrate that he raised
those issues in the trial court. Id.; see Sup. Ct. R. 13(3), 15(3) (if appealing party
intends to argue that a ruling is unsupported by or contrary to the evidence, the
party shall include a transcript of all evidence relevant to such ruling). Absent a
transcript, we assume the evidence was sufficient to support the result reached
by the trial court, Bean, 151 N.H. at 250, and review its order for errors of law
only, see Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 397 (1997). 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. Thus, we cannot determine what evidence was offered,
what arguments were raised, or what procedure was followed. See Bean, 151
N.H. at 250. Therefore, we assume that the evidence was sufficient to support
the trial court’s determination. Id. We review the trial court’s order for errors of
law only, see Atwood, 142 N.H. at 397, and find none.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Lynn, Bassett, and Hantz Marconi, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2