at a 95% confidence level. Pursuant to Rule 2:5-4(a), the State argues that the letter from Professor Feingold in defendant’s appendix concerning confidence intervals should be stricken from the record along with the portions of defendant’s brief relying on the letter. The State contends that such material is outside the record on appeal. The defense counters that Dr. Shaler alluded at trial to confidence intervals and that Dr. Feingold’s letter is simply an “illustration of the importance of confidence intervals to a fair understanding of statistical evidence.” We grant the State’s motion to strike. An appellate court, when reviewing trial errors, generally confines itself to the record. See County of Bergen v. Borough of Paramus, 79 N.J. 302, 309-10 n. 2, 399 A.2d 616 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Ambassador Ins. Co. v. Montes, 76 N.J. 477,
holding that settlement documents were admissible under both section 90408 and federal rule of evidence 408 because the documents were offered not to establish liability but to establish violation of consumer credit laws holding that the court properly refused to instruct on an issue for which no evidence was offered holding that the appellant could not complain that an affidavit and mediated settlement agreement were not in evidence even though those documents were not formally offered and admitted holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable holding that appellants appendix which contained numerous documents not offered into evidence clearly violated r 254