M.B. v. P.G.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2024-0185, M.B. v. P.G., the court on August
21, 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, M.B., appeals an order of the Circuit Court
(McIntyre, J.), following an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff’s civil stalking
petition against the defendant, P.G., finding that the plaintiff has not been
stalked, and dismissing the petition. The plaintiff argues that the evidence
compelled a finding that the defendant stalked her. We affirm.

It was the plaintiff’s burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the defendant “stalked” her as that term is defined by the statute. See
RSA 633:3-a, I, II, III-a (Supp. 2023). We view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party, here the defendant, and defer to the trial
court’s judgment in evaluating the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of
the evidence presented. S.C. v. G.C., 175 N.H. 158, 162-63 (2022). The trial
court may accept or reject, in whole or in part, whatever evidence was
presented; our standard of review is not whether we would have ruled
differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person could have
reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence.
Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003). Based on all the evidence
introduced in this case, we conclude that the trial court reasonably determined
that the defendant did not stalk the plaintiff.

Any remaining arguments in the plaintiff’s brief are insufficiently
developed to warrant further review. See State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49
(2003). In light of this order, the motion to strike the plaintiff’s brief is moot.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk