Cited by

State v. Smith, 169 N.H. 602, 607 (2017); cf. State v. Bergmann, 135 N.H. 97, 99-100 (1991) (holding that record on appeal was insufficient to determine whether trial court abused its discretion in denying motion to dismiss in part because the record did not include the basis for the trial court’s decision).

It is the defendant’s burden on appeal to provide a record that is sufficient to decide the issues he is raising.

“It is well established that the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to decide the issue raised on appeal is upon the moving party, in this case, the defendant.” State v. Bergmann, 135 N.H. 97, 99 (1991).

The State further asserts that the trial court reasonably interpreted the legislature’s use of the word “premises.” We first “examine the threshold question whether an adequate record exists to resolve this issue.” State v. Bergmann, 135 N.H. 97, 99 (1991).

The fact that there was an unrecorded chambers conference does not “relieve the defendant of his burden to present an adequate record” on appeal.

Manna, 130 N.H. at 310; see State v. Bergmann, 135 N.H. 97, 102 (1991).

A decision to consolidate charges will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.

Factors to consider on the appropriateness of the trial court’s decision are “whether the evidence in support of each offense was brief, simple and unlikely to confuse a jury, and easily referable to each crime.” State v. Bergmann, 135 N.H. 97, 101, 599 A.2d 502, 505 (1991) (quotation omitted).

From the record presented to us by Brenda, see State v. Bergmann, 135 N.H. 97, 99, 599 A.2d 502, 504 (1991) (moving party has the burden of providing the supreme court with a sufficient record to decide the issue), it appears that she failed either to (1) request appointment of a guardian ad litem pursuant to RSA 464-A:41, or (2) bring this issue to the attention of the trial court.

We will not reverse the trial court’s ruling on a motion to consolidate unless the defendant is able to show an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

A trial court’s decision to consolidate charges will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

“We cannot base a finding that the trial court abused its discretion upon mere speculation.” State v. Bergmann, 135 N.H. 97, 100, 599 A.2d 502, 504 (1991) (quotation omitted).

“It is well established that the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to decide the issue raised on appeal is upon the moving party, in this case, the defendant.” State v. Bergmann, 135 N.H. 97, 99, 599 A.2d 502, 504 (1991); see Sup.

See, e.g., State v. Bergmann, 135 N.H. 97, 599 A.2d 502 (1991); State v. Stearns, 130 N.H. 475, 491, 547 A.2d 672, 681 (1988); State v. Winders, 127 N.H. 471, 477, 503 A.2d 798, 802 (1985); see also Sup.