STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. A.J.(FO-02-0280-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5357-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 12, 2017Background
- After divorce, New York court entered an order of protection (June 6, 2014) barring defendant A.J. from communicating with ex-wife K.O. or their children; a November 19, 2014 temporary order modified it to allow email communications "with respect to the subject children" and specific holiday parenting time.
- Defendant missed a scheduled police-precinct pickup on Dec. 24, 2014 (mistook time) and then called, texted, and later emailed K.O. to arrange alternate pickup and to complain.
- At 6:50 p.m. on Dec. 24 defendant emailed K.O., addressing her as "The Problem," criticizing her conduct and threatening to bring contempt before the family court; K.O. testified the email made her "incredibly nervous."
- K.O. filed harassment and contempt complaints on Jan. 12, 2015; defendant was denied a public defender, waived counsel, and proceeded pro se at trial on May 19, 2015.
- Trial judge convicted defendant of contempt for knowingly violating the NY order (email went beyond permitted child-related communications) and of harassment for the content of the email; on appeal the Appellate Division affirmed the contempt conviction but reversed the harassment conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports harassment conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4 (purpose to harass) | Email was insulting, alarming given history; created nervousness — supports purpose to harass | Email concerned parenting/time and was not aimed to harass; no specific intent proven | Reversed — judge did not find requisite purpose to harass and record lacks that finding |
| Whether evidence supports contempt conviction for violating out-of-state order under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(b) | Email exceeded permitted child-related communications in modified NY order; defendant knowingly violated the order | Defendant claims communications concerned children and were permitted | Affirmed — email was not about the children and knowingly violated the protection order |
| Whether the trial court elicited a knowing, voluntary waiver of counsel | Waiver colloquy satisfied court rules and defendant knowingly proceeded pro se | Defendant contends waiver was not knowing/voluntary | Affirmed (no reversible error) — appellate court found no sufficient merit to review further |
| Whether reversal of harassment affects contempt conviction | Harassment and contempt are distinct; contempt may stand on violation of order even if harassment fails | Defendant argued convictions are linked and reversal should impact both | Affirmed contempt stands independently; harassment reversal does not disturb contempt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (discusses deference to factfinder who observed witnesses)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (same principle on appellate deference and credibility)
- State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564 (purpose of Prevention of Domestic Violence Act and harassment/contour of harassment statute)
- State v. L.C., 283 N.J. Super. 441 ( First Amendment limits on harassment prosecutions; harassment requires specific intent)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (victim's subjective reaction insufficient; need evidence of improper purpose)
- Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243 (harassment finding required specific intent; reversal where absent)