State v. Sero, 82 N.M. 17, 474 P.2d 503 (Ct.App. 1970). In State v. Sero, supra, and State v. Silver, 83 N.M. 1, 487 P.2d 910 (Ct.App. 1971), we held that a denial of severance was not prejudicial because the defendant was acquitted on one or more charges. The jury was able to follow the evidence.

. Accord Ex parte Grayson, 479 So.2d 76 (Ala. 1985) (fee limitations do not per se violate indigent defendants' rights to equal protection of the laws); State v. Silver, 83 N.M. 1, 487 P.2d 910 (Ct.App. 1971) (same).

Also, we see no facts in the record to support such an exemption. See State v. Silver, 83 N.M. 1, 2, 487 P.2d 910, 912 (Ct. App. 1971) (stating that where the record does not show that the appellant's contention was presented to the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal). In addition, Defendant attaches several documents to his memorandum in opposition to our notice, which he represents that he filed in district court and made part of that record and which he purports exempt him from the governance of the New Mexico Traffic Code. [MIO 2] Even assuming that these documents were filed in the district court, Defendant does not refer us to controlling authority that recognizes those documents as providing exemption from the New Mexico Traffic Code.

It does not appear from the record, however, that AAA Gas ever requested the court to have Plaintiffs disclose their workers' compensation settlement to substantiate a claim of financial hardship and we do not consider that contention. See State v. Silver, 83 N.M. 1, 2, 487 P.2d 910, 912 (Ct.App. 1971) (declining to consider new contentions on appeal where record did not reflect it was presented to the trial court). {103} As to the remaining charges, this Court reviews the trial court's assessment of costs in a civil action under an abuse of discretion standard.

He is not entitled to have his testimony falsely cloaked with reliability by having his credibility protected against the truthsearching process of cross-examination." Id. (citation omitted); see also State v. Duran, 83 N.M. 700, 701-02, 496 P.2d 1096, 1097-98 (Ct.App. 1972) (stating that it did not violate due process to allow evidence of prior convictions, despite the defendant's contention that such evidence prejudiced his right to testify); State v. Silver, 83 N.M. 1, 2, 487 P.2d 910, 911 (Ct.App. 1971) (same). We determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Defendant's prior conviction could be admitted for impeachment purposes.

Where there is no showing that claimant has been deprived of equal protection and due process rights, there is no issue for decision. See State v. Silver, 83 N.M. 1, 2-3, 487 P.2d 910, 911-12 (Ct.App. 1971). The decision of the workers' compensation administration is affirmed.

Contentions not presented before the trial court, stipulated to by each of the parties, or contained in the record proper are not reviewable an appeal. See State v. Silver, 83 N.M. 1, 487 P.2d 910 (Ct.App. 1971). Generally, motions to suppress must set out with particularity the grounds relied on for the relief sought.

Moreover, plaintiff's briefs in district court admitted the accuracy of the documents. Thus, plaintiff not only has waived any right to object to the documents, see State v. Silver, 83 N.M. 1, 487 P.2d 910 (Ct.App. 1971), she also has provided an independent ground for their admissibility by her judicial admissions. Plaintiff also complains that the district court ordered a dismissal on the briefs alone, without a hearing before the court.

Defendant recognizes that State v. Montano, 93 N.M. 436, 601 P.2d 69 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 93 N.M. 683, 604 P.2d 821 (1979) and State v. Blakley, 90 N.M. 744, 568 P.2d 270 (Ct. App. 1977), appear to control this issue. See also State v. Burdex, 668 P.2d 313 (Ct.App. 1983); State v. Silver, 83 N.M. 1, 487 P.2d 910 (Ct.App. 1971). Defendant distinguishes Blakley on the ground that the counts in Blakley all arose out of one transaction and evidence of all counts would be admissible in a separate trial on one count.

New Mexico has repeatedly refused to consider matters outside the record in reaching a decision on appeal, holding that such matters present no issue for review. State v. Smith, 92 N.M. 533, 591 P.2d 664 (1979); State v. Silver, 83 N.M. 1, 487 P.2d 910 (Ct.App. 1971); State v. Paul, 82 N.M. 791, 487 P.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1971); State v. Ford, 81 N.M. 556, 469 P.2d 535 (Ct.App. 1970). The record on appeal is presumed to be accurate and is conclusive on the reviewing court.