Cited by

We then examine the court’s order only for errors of law.

However, in the absence of a transcript, we must presume that the evidence supported the decision of the trial court.

We rejected these very contentions in State v. Woods, 139 N.H. 399 (1995).

I A Because the defendant has not provided, as part of the appellate record, the transcript of the evidentiary hearing held on his motion or all of the exhibits entered at that hearing, we must assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, and we review its decision only for errors of law.

In the absence of a transcript, we ordinarily assume that the evidence supports the trial court’s decision.

State v. Woods, 139 N.H. 399, 403 (1995) (noting that in the absence of a transcript, the evidence is presumed to support the result reached by the trial court).

Rollins-Ercolino, 149 N.H. at 339; see State v. Woods, 139 N.H. 399, 400-01 (1995) (considering relevant statutory scheme in interpreting undefined statutory term).

CT. R. 13, 15; State v. Woods, 139 N.H. 399, 403 (1995) (where there is no transcript, we presume evidence was sufficient to support result below).

“We look first to the statutory language itself,” Brewster Academy v. Town of Wolfeboro, 142 N.H. 382, 383, 701 A.2d 1240, 1241 (1997) (quotation omitted), and unless they are defined within the statutory scheme, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used.

“On questions of statutory interpretation, this court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.” State v. Woods, 139 N.H. 399, 400, 654 A.2d 960, 961 (1995) (quotation omitted).

*397 Accordingly, we review the superior court’s order for errors of law only.

“[T]his court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.” State v. Woods, 139 N.H. 399, 400, 654 A.2d 960, 961 (1995) (quotation omitted).

As the moving parties, the plaintiffs bore the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to support its arguments.

“On questions of statutory interpretation, this court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.” State v. Woods, 139 N.H. 399, 400, 654 A.2d 960, 961 (1995) (quotation omitted).