|
Domestic Violence violation
Saturday, February 27, 2021
Thursday, February 18, 2021
Friday, October 20, 2017
Decision – A.W. v. N.M. Read more . . .
Friday, January 6, 2017
The Appellate Division did not necessarily agree with Defendant’s arguments but required a remand because of troubling statements made by the trial judge, the haphazard manner in which the hearing was conducted, and the erroneous information the judge gave to defendant about the use of his testimony. Both parties were self-represented when they appeared for the FRO hearing. The judge began questioning them about the nature of their relationship without placing either party under oath. The judge then indicated that he had reviewed plaintiff's complaint and, even though plaintiff alleged prior acts of domestic violence, he stated that the complaint did not allege "any real domestic violence history." The judge also noted that the TRO had not been issued by a superior court judge, but by a municipal court judge.
Read more . . .
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
In a Decision – DC v BC (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Trial Court, as a Decision of first impression, set forth that a knowing violation of a temporary restraining order meets the first prong of a two-pronged test. Two or more separate acts, even if each independently insufficient to meet the two-prong Silver test for entry of a restraining order, may in the aggregate satisfy Silver and constitute a sufficient basis for entry of a restraining order. The right of a plaintiff to seek a final restraining order, based upon a defendant's knowing violation of a temporary restraining order, exists independently of whether defendant’s violation is, or can be, the subject of separate contempt proceedings in an action for violating a restraining order under the court's “FO” docket, pursuant to N.J.S.
Read more . . .
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Domestic Violence -- Can You "Film" / Video ?? The Court, determined that, in this case, there was no violation of a Domestic Violence Order by the brief filming of the victim at a Child's Soccer Field (Pitch)?? | In a Published Decision - State v DGM - the Court Held that the Defendant who was sitting near and briefly filming the victim at their child's soccer game did NOT violate a Domestic Violence Order. SNIPPETS: Defendant was "prohibited" defendant "from having any (oral, written, personal, electronic 3 A-5783-12T4 or other) form of contact or communication with" the Victim. .. . . Defendant was sitting near and briefly filming the Victim at their six-year-old son's soccer game. .. . . Because defendant was acquitted in all other respects, we examine the sufficiency of the judge's conclusion that Defendant violated the FRO's "no contact" provision by recording Victim's image with his cellphone or, in the trial judge's words, whether "recording [her] was a form of contact." .. . . Although such conduct falls within the FRO's prohibition on "communication," we conclude that defendant could not have fairly anticipated this result. In applying the doctrine of lenity, we reverse.. . . Because, until today's decision, it was not clear whether the brief filming of a victim in an open and public place constituted a form of prohibited communication, defendant could not have known to a sufficient certainty that he was violating the FRO by engaging in the conduct found to have occurred by the trial judge. ****************************************************** The information contained in this communication is similar to ordinary telephone conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry which would be applied in the event a formal opinion was rendered by this firm. The information may also be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this communication is intended to constitute a waiver of any privilege of the confidentiality of this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. This firm accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage from the use or receipt of this message and/or any attachments hereto, including any damage caused by virus. 3/26/15
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Domestic Violence -- Where Can You Go??…….. | The Court, to protect a Domestic Violence Victim can bar a Person from the Victim's Employment - What about a business within a business within a larger business location?? | In an Unpublished Decision "Sapio", the Victim was employed by an entity within a vision center adjacent to a Walmart store. Defendant was barred from the Victim's "place(s) of employment". The Appellate Division determined that since Defendant was not barred from Walmart (as opposed to the Victim's place of employment). SNIPPETS: The FRO does not set forth with any specificity that defendant was barred from the Walmart store. N.J.S.A. 2C:25- 29(b)(6). The fact [ ] may have had to traverse over or 8 A-0674-13T1 through other locations to reach her place of employment does not convert such locations into areas from which defendant is banned. . . . Potentially, defendant is prohibited from entering these locations, but only if a court finds [ ] regularly frequents them and they are specifically identified in a domestic violence order. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(6) .. . . Accordingly, because the FRO did not prohibit defendant from entering the Walmart store, the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly violated the FRO when he entered the store on June 10, 2013. Under these circumstances, defendant's conviction cannot stand. ****************************************************** The information contained in this communication is similar to ordinary telephone conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry which would be applied in the event a formal opinion was rendered by this firm. The information may also be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this communication is intended to constitute a waiver of any privilege of the confidentiality of this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. This firm accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage from the use or receipt of this message and/or any attachments hereto, including any damage caused by virus. 3/4/15
|
|
|
|