[¶ 1] Dеnnis Haugen appealed from the criminal judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial after a jury found him guilty of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. We affirm the district court judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial.
I.
[¶ 2] In March 2006, Haugen was charged with aggravated assault, terrorizing and carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. The charge of carrying a loaded firеarm in a vehicle stems from an incident on March 23, 2006. While there was no full trial transcript included in the record on appеal, the district court order denying the motion for a new trial described some testimony presented at trial regarding the incident. Haugen said he received a phone call at his shop from his neighbor, Rodney Hulst, who wanted money to repair a trаiler damaged by Haugen. Hau-gen testified Hulst very angrily said he wanted his money and then slammed the phone down. Haugen also testified there were five or six calls after the initial call and that he quit answering the telephone because he believеd the calls were from Hulst. During this time, Haugen was in his locked shop with a cell phone.
[¶ 3] A police officer knocked on Hau-gen’s locked shop door shortly after the telephone calls and identified himself as law enforcement. Haugen tеstified he did not answer because he thought it was Hulst or an individual with Hulst and was scared. Approximately forty-five minutes to an hour after the telephone confrontation, Haugen left his shop with a loaded gun. He stated he was talking on his cell phone tо his son as he exited the shop.
[IF 4] At his February 2007 jury trial, Haugen requested jury instructions on self-defense, excuse and justification for each of the charges. The district court allowed the instructions for the aggravated assault and terrorizing charges but decided the instructions were not applicable to the strict liability offense of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Hаugen was acquitted of the aggravated assault and terrorizing charges but found guilty of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehiclе.
[¶ 5] On appeal, Haugen argues the jury instructions were incorrect because the district court erred in deciding the offense of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle was a strict liability offense not subject to self-defense, excuse оr justification. Haugen also argues the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial or in declining to vacate his conviсtion for carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle.
II.
[¶ 6] We review jury instructions to determine whether, as a whole, they fairly and adequately advised the jury of the applicable law.
Strand v. Cass County,
[¶ 7] This Court has determined the Legislature may enact laws making the violatiоn thereof a matter of strict criminal liability without a culpability
*798
requirement.
State v. Nygaard,
[¶ 8] The relevant statute, N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-10, states, “No person may keep or carry a loaded firearm in or on any motor vehicle in this state.” The statute lists several exceptions, none of which apply here. We interpret N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-10 to be a strict liability оffense, punishable without regard to intent, knowledge, willfulness, or negligence.
[¶ 9] Strict liability does not always preclude affirmativе defenses.
State v. Eldred,
“Since justifications and excuses have similar consequences, the principal reason for distinguishing between them is clarity of analysis. A justification is a circumstance which actually exists and which makes harmful conduct proper and noncriminal. An excuse is a circumstance for which the Code excuses the actor from criminal liability even thоugh the actor was not ‘justified’ in doing what he did, e.g., a nonculpable but mistaken belief that facts affording a justification exist.”
Id.
at 845 (quoting Final Report of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws at 44 (1971)). Thus, if a defendant’s conduct was either justified in aсtuality, or excused because he reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that circumstances actually existed which would justify his сonduct, the defendant would have a valid affirmative defense.
Lembke,
at 157. The decisive issue under our law of self-defense is not whеther a person’s beliefs are correct, but rather whether they are reasonable.
State v. Leidholm,
[¶ 10] The district court decided Hau-gen fаiled to attempt available alternatives to carrying a loaded firearm in his vehicle, such as calling law enforcement. While Haugen argues he acted reasonably because of the history between the parties and his own pаst experience with law enforcement, this Court lacks a record with which to substantiate his allegations. An appellant assumes the consequences and risks for failure to file a complete transcript, and we will not review an issue if the record on appeal does not allow for a meaningful and intelligent review of the alleged error.
Industrial Com’n of North Dakota v. Noack,
III.
[¶ 11] We affirm the district court judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial.