313 A.3d 24
N.J.2024Background
- Clara (plaintiff) alleged she was sexually assaulted by Martin (defendant) and sought a protective order under the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA) of 2015 after the incident in June 2018.
- The trial court issued a final protective order (FPO), finding lack of consent due to Clara's intoxication and a possibility of future risk to her safety or well-being.
- The Appellate Division initially reversed, questioning the consent standard the trial court applied.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reinstated the FPO, clarifying that "affirmative consent" is required under SASPA, and remanded for further factual findings on the "possibility of future risk."
- On remand, the trial judge found Clara's testimony about ongoing trauma and fear credible, reaffirmed the FPO, and this was affirmed by the Appellate Division.
- The Supreme Court granted certification to interpret the specific standard required under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2) regarding the "possibility of future risk."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What must be shown to establish the "possibility of future risk" under SASPA for an FPO? | Clara: Serious ongoing psychological trauma and fear satisfy the requirement. | Martin: The risk standard is too low; mere fear or desire for peace of mind doesn't suffice without objective evidence of threat. | The possibility of future risk is a permissive, easily satisfied standard; credible testimony of trauma or fear may suffice. |
| Is a reasonable-person/objective standard required for survivor's fear? | No, subjective credible testimony by survivor is sufficient. | Yes, fear should be objectively reasonable to justify an FPO. | No, SASPA does not require reasonableness; subjective testimony alone may be sufficient. |
| Is the SASPA FPO standard distinct from the more demanding PDVA final restraining order (FRO) standard? | Yes; legislature intentionally set a lower, more permissive threshold in SASPA. | Sought to import PDVA’s stricter standards, including necessity and immediate danger, to SASPA FPOs. | Yes, SASPA FPO requires only a "possibility of future risk," not the "immediate danger" or "necessity" required under the PDVA. |
| Is evidence of psychological symptoms or treatment necessary to show future risk? | No, such evidence is not required; fear/testimony alone is sufficient. | Implied more concrete evidence is needed to show future risk. | No, neither expert testimony nor long-term symptoms are required to satisfy the standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (trial court findings in family matters are given substantial deference on review)
- State in Interest of M.T.S., 129 N.J. 422 (N.J. 1992) (articulated affirmative consent standard for sexual assault in New Jersey)
- C.R. v. M.T., 248 N.J. 428 (N.J. 2021) (earlier ruling in this same litigation establishing the use of the affirmative consent standard under SASPA)