State of New Hampshire v. John LaFratta

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2016-0673, State of New Hampshire v. John
LaFratta, the court on May 15, 2017, issued the following order:
Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, and limited record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The defendant, John LaFratta, appeals the order of the Circuit Court
(Coughlin, J.), following a hearing, denying his motion for return of firearms.
We construe his argument to be that the evidence did not support the court’s
order.
A domestic violence protective order “direct[s] the defendant to relinquish
to the peace officer any and all firearms and ammunition in the control,
ownership, or possession of the defendant . . . for the duration of the protective
order.” RSA 173-B:5, I (Supp. 2016). Thereafter, “[t]he defendant shall be
prohibited from purchasing, receiving, or possessing any deadly weapons and
any and all firearms and ammunition for the duration of the order.” RSA 173-
B:5, II (2014); see also 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (2012) (making it a violation of
federal law to possess any firearm or ammunition in or affecting commerce
after having been restrained by a court, following a hearing, from harassing,
stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of an intimate partner,
and after having been found by the court to represent a credible threat to the
physical safety of such intimate partner or child).
The trial court took judicial notice of a domestic violence protective order
in effect from August 23, 2016 to August 22, 2017, in which the court found
that the defendant had committed an act of domestic violence against the
plaintiff and that his conduct constituted a credible present threat to her
safety. See RSA 173-B:1 (Supp. 2016) (defining domestic violence).
The protective order prohibiting the defendant from possessing firearms
and ammunition is not scheduled to expire until August 22, 2017. The court
held its hearing on December 13, 2016. After considering testimony from the
defendant and the police chief for the Town of Pembroke, the court denied the
defendant’s motion.
It is the burden of the appealing party, here the defendant, to provide
this court with a record sufficient to decide his issues on appeal. Bean v. Red
Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R. 15(3) (“If the
moving party intends to argue in the supreme court that a finding or
conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, he
shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding
or conclusion.”); Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001)
(rules of appellate practice not relaxed for self-represented litigants).
The defendant failed to provide a transcript of the December 13, 2016
hearing. Absent a transcript, we must assume that the evidence was sufficient
to support the trial court’s order. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396
(1997). We review the court’s order for errors of law only, see id. at 397, and
find none.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2