STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROBERT MOSTYN(FO-02-0218-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-4729-15T2

Background

On Sept. 15, 2015 J.A. (victim) obtained a Florida temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting Mostyn from contacting her and from entering or being within 500 feet of specified locations, including a New Jersey gym.
Police served Mostyn with the TRO at his home on Sept. 21, gave him a copy, explained its terms, and he signed acknowledging understanding.
That evening Mostyn consulted Anthony Colasanti, a New Jersey attorney unfamiliar with Florida restraining orders, who advised that the TRO applied only when the victim was in New Jersey.
On Sept. 22 Mostyn went to the gym in New Jersey; surveillance and a traffic stop confirmed his presence. He was arrested and made a taped statement acknowledging he knew he was not permitted at the gym.
At bench trial Mostyn asserted a mistake-of-law/ignorance defense under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-4(c)(3), claiming reasonable reliance on counsel’s advice; the Family Part found him guilty of contempt of a domestic-violence restraining order and defiant trespass, imposed a 30-day sentence (suspended pending one year probation).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant established the affirmative mistake-of-law defense under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-4(c)(3)	State: TRO was clear/unambiguous; defendant did not diligently pursue means to ascertain its scope and did not honestly conclude his conduct was lawful	Mostyn: reasonably relied on counsel’s advice that TRO only applied when victim was in New Jersey; took steps to verify victim’s location	Court: Affirmed — defendant failed to prove the defense by clear and convincing evidence; TRO terms were clear and he acted knowingly
Whether defendant lacked the requisite mens rea (knowingly/purposely) for contempt and trespass	State: evidence shows defendant knowingly violated TRO after being served	Mostyn: argued mistake or lack of culpable mental state under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-4(a)	Court: Rejected — factual findings support that defendant knowingly violated the order
Credibility of defendant’s claimed verification that victim was in Florida	State: defendant’s claimed phone call with cousin not proven; counsel’s advice uninformed as to Florida law	Mostyn: relied on information from cousin and mutual acquaintances that victim was in Florida	Court: Judge found defendant’s testimony not credible and Colasanti uninformed; reliance insufficient
Whether trial judge erred in legal interpretation/application of mistake-of-law doctrines	State: judge correctly applied narrow framework for subsection (c) and required clear and convincing proof	Mostyn: appellate counsel argued judge didn’t address subsection (a) adequately	Court: No reversible error — factual findings supported conviction; judge implicitly rejected subsection (a) defense by finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Key Cases Cited

State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307 (discussing appellate review of trial factfinding)
State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (trial judge’s opportunity to observe witnesses informs deference to factual findings)
State v. Yough, 208 N.J. 385 (trial court’s advantage in assessing witness demeanor)
State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249 (de novo review for legal questions)
State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Wickliff, 378 N.J. Super. 328 (distinguishing N.J.S.A. 2C:2-4(a) and (c); burden for affirmative mistake-of-law defense)
State v. Sexton, 160 N.J. 93 (principle that prosecution must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt)