A.C. VS. M.P.C. (FV-16-0154-16, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-2424-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 14, 2017Background
- A.C. (plaintiff) obtained a final restraining order (FRO) against her husband, M.P.C. (defendant); defendant appealed the FRO.
- At the hearing A.C. testified to multiple incidents: an assault where defendant threw a heavy fruit bowl at her after she threw his tools into a storage room; a November 2014 chase and arm-grab that left bruising (photographed); and a forced sexual encounter in May 2015.
- A.C. also testified about defendant’s large cache of weapons stored in a bunker guarded by mannequins; she said this contributed to her fear for safety.
- Judge Adrianzen found A.C. credible and M.P.C. not credible, credited the described incidents and photos, and concluded the dual Silver test for issuing an FRO was met.
- Defendant objected to testimony about weapons as beyond the complaint’s scope; the judge overruled and defendant did not seek a continuance or deny the weapons’ existence.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, deferring to the trial judge’s credibility findings and reasoning as supported by substantial credible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made sufficient factual findings of intent to cause bodily injury for the predicate offense (Silver first prong) | A.C. argued the fruit-bowl incident and other conduct showed intent to cause bodily injury | M.P.C. argued the court failed to make factual findings of intent and that any finding was speculative | Court held the trial judge made sufficient findings: throwing a heavy bowl at close range with full force showed motive and intent to cause bodily injury |
| Whether the FRO was necessary to prevent future abuse (Silver second prong) | A.C. argued history of domestic violence, recent injuries, sexual assault, and weapons supported necessity and immediate danger | M.P.C. argued some evidence (weapons) was beyond complaint scope and insufficient to justify FRO | Court held the second prong was met: credibility of A.C., history of abuse, immediate danger, and weapons supported necessity |
| Admissibility/appropriateness of testimony about weapons not mentioned in the complaint | A.C. argued testimony went to her fear and was within scope; counsel timely objected but defense had notice and did not request continuance | M.P.C. argued evidence was outside complaint scope and unfairly expanded issues at hearing | Court held admission was proper: defendant had knowledge, did not claim surprise or request continuance, and weapons evidence supplemented rather than controlled the FRO decision |
| Whether the judge failed to make specific findings about prior incidents alleged in the complaint | A.C. relied on judge’s credibility findings and descriptions of prior acts | M.P.C. argued the court omitted explicit factual findings on other prior incidents | Court held judge’s credibility determinations and discussion of the evidence were sufficient to support the FRO |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (discusses appellate deference to trial court factual and credibility findings)
- Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (sets the dual-element test for domestic-violence restraining orders)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (addresses parties’ notice and preparation when testimony expands beyond complaint allegations)
- J.F. v. B.K., 308 N.J. Super. 387 (discusses limits on using complaint as exclusive scope when additional prior acts are introduced)
- L.D. v. W.D., 327 N.J. Super. 1 (addresses when testimony about unpleaded prior acts may be prejudicial)