As authority for this principle, the State refers us to the language of former RSA 265:82, which was in effect at the time of the defendant's trial ("Upon conviction based on a complaint which alleges that the person has had one or more prior convictions . . . and said prior conviction or convictions are proven . . ., such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. . . ."), and to State v. Miller, 102 N.H. 260, 263 154 A.2d 699, 701(1959) (whether the State has established that the accused was previously convicted is a question of fact for the trial court). The State takes this authority to mean that the prior conviction is an element of the offense, and that evidence of it consequently must be introduced, even in the form of a stipulation by the defendant.

The State, however, has the burden of proving that the accused is the same person who has been convicted of the offenses that are listed in the habitual offender petition. State v. Gosselin, 117 N.H. 115, 370 A.2d 264 (1977); State v. Miller, 102 N.H. 260, 263, 154 A.2d 699, 701 (1959). The defendant argues that the State failed to meet this burden.

"While there is authority for the proposition that judicial notice should be conclusive (Morgan, Judicial Notice, 57 Harv. L. Rev. 269), fairness in trial practice demands that the opposing party have an opportunity to dispute it." State v. Duranleau, 99 N.H. 30, 32, 104 A.2d 519, 521 (1954); accord, Paras v. City of Portsmouth, 115 N.H. 63, 335 A.2d 304 (1975); State v. Miller, 102 N.H. 260, 154 A.2d 699 (1959). In Insurance Services Office v. Whaland, 117 N.H. 712, 378 A.2d 743 (1977), the commissioner rejected a requested rate increase partly in reliance on information not contained within the record.

The identity of defendant with the William Gosselin who had previously been convicted and imprisoned was "a question of fact for the trial court whose finding will be sustained if supported by the evidence." State v. Miller, 102 N.H. 260, 263, 154 A.2d 699, 701 (1959). The various records from the state prison and parole board on which Mr. Couture based his testimony included a photograph of defendant and his date of birth, as well as his name.

If the question of proving the former conviction is raised on the appeal, this can be done by several methods, none of which is particularly burdensome. The original court record or a certified copy of it prepared by the clerk or the judge of the Hooksett municipal court would, of course, be sufficient. RSA 516:30; State v. Cox, 69 N.H. 246; State v. Deane, 101 N.H. 127, 130. Another means of proving the prior conviction would be to call the clerk of that court as was done in State v. Miller, 102 N.H. 260. Still another method of proving the former conviction would be the record certified by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles under RSA 259:10, as implemented by RSA 262:30. State v. Cardin, 102 N.H. 314.

In the absence of contradictory proof, we take Davis Avenue to be a public road. State v. Miller, 102 N.H. 260, 154 A.2d 699. III