J.M. v. V.P.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0626, J.M. v. V.P., the court on April 10,
2023, issued the following order:

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 plaintiff appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Tenney, J.), following
a hearing, denying a domestic violence final order of protection in favor of the
plaintiff, and dismissing the case. See RSA 173-B:5 (2022). The plaintiff argues
that, by crediting the defendant’s version of events, rather than crediting the
contrary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the trial court did not “adequately
adjudicate[]” the case, and erred when it found that the defendant did not pose a
credible present threat to the plaintiff. See RSA 173-B:1, I (2022). We affirm.

“In an appeal from an order on a domestic violence petition, the trial
court’s ‘findings of facts shall be final,’ and we undertake de novo review of
‘questions of law.’” S.C. v. G.C., 175 N.H. 158, 162 (2022) (quoting RSA 173-B:3,
VI). “We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, upholding
the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidentiary
support or tainted by error of law.” Id. “When performing this review, we accord
considerable weight to the trial court’s judgments on the credibility of witnesses
and the weight to be given testimony.” Id. at 162-63. We view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prevailing party — here, the defendant. See id. at
163.

In this case, the plaintiff has failed to provide this court with a transcript of
the hearing. See Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004)
(holding that “[i]t is the burden of the appealing party . . . to provide this court
with a record sufficient to decide [the] issues on appeal”). Accordingly, absent a
transcript of the hearing, and in light of our deferential standard of review, “we
must assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the result reached by
the trial court.” Id.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk