2023-0348 Nonprecedential Processed

Frederick Howcroft v. New Hampshire Department of Safety

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Filed June 13, 2024

Opinion text

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0348, Frederick Howcroft v. New
Hampshire Department of Safety, the court on June 13, 2024,
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, Frederick Howcroft, appeals an order of the Superior
Court (Leonard, J.) upholding the administrative suspension of his driver’s
license by the defendant, the New Hampshire Department of Safety. See RSA
265-A:30, :31, :34 (2014). He argues that his refusal to submit to certain field
sobriety tests should not have weighed against him in determining whether police
had reasonable grounds to believe he had been driving while under the influence
of alcohol. See RSA 265-A:31, II(a). We affirm.

“In an appeal of a license suspension to the superior court, the petitioner
has the burden to show that the hearing examiner’s order was clearly
unreasonable or unlawful.” Rudder v. Dir., N.H. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 175 N.H.
38, 42 (2022). “The trial court is required to treat the hearing examiner’s findings
of fact on questions properly before the examiner as prima facie lawful and
reasonable, and may not set aside or vacate the decision unless the court is
satisfied, by a clear preponderance of the evidence before it, that the decision is
unjust or unreasonable.” Id. In turn, “[w]e will uphold the trial court’s decision
on appeal unless the evidence does not support it or it is legally erroneous.” Id.

As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s thorough and well-reasoned order, the plaintiff’s
challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated reversible error and affirm the
court’s decision. See id.; Sup. Ct. R. 25(8).

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Bassett, Donovan, and Countway, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk