State v. S.K., 33 A.3d 1255

Final restraining order entered November 29, 2005 after Family Part hearing where both parties appeared pro se and testified.
Order included prohibitions on contact, home, and place of employment, and addressed parenting time and support; but did not specifically reference a blanket prohibition on being in any place where plaintiff is located.
From 2005 to 2010 no charges were filed; in 2010 ex-wife reported defendant at their child’s soccer game, asserting the restraining order was active and that he was in proximity to her.
Police filed a formal contempt and harassment complaint the following day after the citizen’s complaint; defendant arrested and held for several hours.
State offered a plea; defendant pled guilty to contempt after a non-custodial sentence agreement; court imposed one day jail (satisfied) and $125 in penalties.
Appellate court held the order’s ‘any other place where plaintiff is located’ provision overly broad, and that the factual basis did not prove defendant knowingly violated the order; reversed, remanding to dismiss and amend the order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of the 'any other place' provision	State argues broad provision properly prevents further abuse.	Finamore asserts the provision is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.	Provision invalid; order must be amended.
Sufficiency of knowledge to convict for contempt	State contends defendant knew the order was in effect and violated it by presence at game.	Wording and record do not prove he knew presence at the game violated the order.	Record insufficient to establish knowledge beyond general awareness.
Adequacy of the plea factual basis	Plea based on presence at the game violates the order; sufficient for contempt.	Factual basis fails to show knowing violation of a specific, enforceable prohibition.	Plea inadequate; conviction reversed; dismissal ordered.
Remedy and statutory alignment	Remand for dismissal and potential amendment maintains protective purpose.	No explicit argument beyond desire for proper remedy.	Remand to dismiss and amend the order to cure the overbreadth.

Finamore v. Aronson, 382 N.J. Super. 514 (App. Div. 2006) (specific relief to protect victim must be distinctly described)
State v. Finamore, 338 N.J. Super. 130 (App. Div. 2001) (ordering barring from child activities requires factual support)
State v. L.C., 283 N.J. Super. 441 (App. Div. 1995) (knowledge element for contempt under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9b)
State v. Krupinski, 321 N.J. Super. 34 (App. Div. 1999) (prosecutor’s discretion and the scope of contempt)
State v. Wilmouth, 302 N.J. Super. 20 (App. Div. 1997) (analysis of restraint provisions and contemplation of overbreadth)
Zappaunbulso v. Zappaunbulso, 367 N.J. Super. 216 (App. Div. 2004) (broad injunctions under DV statute require factual support)
In re Ringwood Fact Finding Comm., 65 N.J. 512 (1974) (prosecutorial discretion in technical violations)