V.M. v. J.M.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0487, V.M. v. J.M., the court on February
27, 2023, issued the following order:

The plaintiff’s motion to strike “extra-record information” in the
defendant’s brief and appendix, to which the defendant does not object, is
granted. The court has not considered the stricken documents or the
arguments based solely upon them.

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See
Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The defendant, J.M., appeals the order of the Circuit Court
(Forrest, J.) denying his motion to reopen a domestic violence case, or for a new
trial. He argues that the court erred in denying his motion in light of additional
evidence allegedly showing that the plaintiff, V.M., misrepresented material
facts. We affirm.

As an initial matter, we reject the defendant’s argument that the trial
court’s decision should be reviewed de novo. The trial court has broad
discretion in deciding whether to reopen a matter based upon newly-discovered
evidence. In the Matter of Spenard & Spenard, 167 N.H. 1, 3 (2014). We will
not overturn the trial court’s decision absent an unsustainable exercise of
discretion. Id. This means that we review the record only to determine
whether it contains an objective basis to sustain the trial court’s discretionary
judgment. Id.

The “new evidence” submitted with the motion did not directly challenge
the finding that an incident of domestic violence occurred. The additional
document regarding the plaintiff’s alleged motive to testify falsely related to
matters that had been the subject of cross-examination at the hearing. The
trial court could have reasonably concluded that the additional evidence was
not likely to produce a different result if the matter were reopened or a new
hearing were held. See State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265, 282 (2002) (moving party
must show that a different result would probably be reached in a new trial).

1
Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial court unsustainably exercised
its discretion in denying the motion. See Spenard, 167 N.H. at 3.

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2