State of New Hampshire v. Louise Juneau-Kurylak

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State of New Hampshire v. Louise Juneau-Kurylak

Opinion

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0378, State of New Hampshire v. Louise Juneau-Kurylak, the court on January 13, 2017, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The defendant, Louise Juneau-Kurylak, appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Morrison, J.) finding her guilty of speeding. See RSA 265:60 (Supp. 2016). We construe her brief to argue that: (1) the speed limit was posted in violation of state and federal law; (2) the trial court erred by denying her discovery request for a copy of the “engineering and traffic survey” supporting the posted speed limit; (3) the State “never conducted the required engineering study”; (4) the speed at which she was traveling was reasonable and proper; (5) RSA 265:60, II conflicts with RSA 265:60, I; and (6) “[t]he adoption and retention of the 55 MPH speed limit was and is arbitrary, and in violation of law.”

It is a long-standing rule that a party may not have judicial review of issues she did not raise in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004). The appealing party has the burden on appeal to provide a record that is sufficient to decide the issues she is raising and to demonstrate that she raised those issues in the trial court. Id. Absent a transcript, we assume the evidence was sufficient to support the result reached by the trial court. Id. These rules are not relaxed for self-represented parties. See In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).

In this case, the defendant has not supplied a transcript of the hearing before the trial court. Therefore, we assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. We examine the trial court’s order for errors of law only, Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 397 (1997), and find none.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox, Clerk

Reference

Status
Unpublished