Opinion ID: 2291010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: seven items

Text: Because the parties agreed to have the Superior Court decide the case on the record without testimony and because the District Court decision denying in part the Sherrards' motion for the return of property was made part of that record, the Superiors Court properly relied on the determinations made by the District Court in ordering forfeiture of seven of the items. [4] the District Court determined that those items are drug paraphernalia and thus contraband pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1111-A. [5] The findings required for an item to be subject to forfeiture pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 5821(2) & (3) [6] are based on criteria essentially identical to the drug paraphernalia findings made by the District Court pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1111-A. In order for us to adequately review the findings of the District Court that the seven items constitute drug paraphernalia, findings that the Superior court relied on in ordering forfeiture of those items, we would have to review the transcript of the Rule 41(e) hearing before the District Court. [7] The Sherrards, as the appellants, have the duty to provide us with an adequate the duty to provide us with an adequate record on appeal. State v. Marshall, 451 A.2d 633, 635 (Me.1982). Because they have not done so, we affirm the findings of the Superior Court that the seven items are contraband and subject to forfeiture. See International Silver Co. v. DiGirolamo, 475 A.2d 1143, 1144-45 (Me.1984).