226, 228, 92 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971) and Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40, 41-42, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 41 (1967)). However, the ICA also concluded that the trial court’s failure to provide Mun-don with the written transcripts was harmless inasmuch as Mundon failed to show that he was prejudiced by proceeding at trial without written transcripts. SDO at 3. Specifically, the ICA stated that: Mundon claims that he was entitled to a transcript of the preliminary hearing so he could cross-examine the complaining witness, who allegedly was unable to identify him at the preliminary hearing. However, Mundon has not substantiated this claim by including the transcript of the preliminary hearing in the record on appeal. See State v. Hoang, 93 Hawai'i 333, 336, 3 P.3d 499, 502 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Regarding Mundon’s request for a transcript
holding that where the record is insufficient to show that the alleged error occurred the presumption that the trial court acted without error must prevail holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that error will not be presumed from a silent record and that without the relevant transcript there is insufficient evidence to review the alleged error and the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating the alleged error in the record holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal holding the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating error in the family courts findings of fact