Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; January 17, 2012; New Jersey; State Appellate Court
Defendant appeals a conviction for contempt arising from a guilty plea related to violating a domestic violence restraining order (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9b). The court vacates the conviction and dismisses the complaint, citing that the restraining order contained an invalid provision that the defendant could not reasonably be expected to obey, and the factual basis for the plea was insufficient. The restraining order was issued on November 29, 2005, after a Family Part hearing where defendant and his ex-wife, who had been married for six years and divorced a year prior, testified pro se. Following an argument about child support payments, an incident of physical confrontation occurred, leading to the issuance of the restraining order, which prohibited contact with the ex-wife and barred him from her home and workplace. However, the judge did not specifically mention a provision that barred the defendant from "any other place where plaintiff is located."
From 2005 to 2010, there were no reported violations. On April 22, 2010, the defendant attended his children’s soccer game where the ex-wife also was present. She called the police, claiming he was violating the restraining order by being in the same location but did not allege any direct contact or misconduct. The police initially did not file charges. The following day, the ex-wife filed a complaint at the police station, leading to formal charges against the defendant for disorderly persons contempt and petty disorderly persons harassment based solely on his presence at the soccer game. After six months, the defendant accepted a plea agreement, leading to a guilty plea for contempt without additional custody time, while the harassment charge was dismissed.
The court conducted a thorough inquiry before accepting the defendant's guilty plea, ensuring compliance with Rule 3:9-2. The prosecutor established the factual basis for the plea by confirming the existence and violation of a restraining order against the defendant, who acknowledged being present at a location prohibited by the order. The court, noting the absence of a criminal record and prior violations, sentenced the defendant to one day in jail, already served, along with mandatory financial penalties totaling $125. The defendant subsequently appealed, with motions granted for indigent status, pro bono counsel, and a transcript of the plea hearing at public expense.
The document highlights that, during previous hearings in 2005 and 2010, there was no explicit discussion regarding the provision in the restraining order that barred the defendant from "any other place where plaintiff is located." The 2005 hearing focused on arrangements for child exchanges without restricting the defendant's attendance at the children's activities. Citing the case Finamore v. Aronson, the court emphasized that restraining orders must distinctly describe the specific relief required for victim protection. The final restraining order in question lacked specificity, as it broadly prohibited the defendant from any location where the ex-wife might be, which the domestic violence statute does not authorize. The statute allows for specific prohibitions related to the victim's residence, property, and regularly frequented locations but does not support vague restrictions.
An order prohibiting a defendant from residing in the same neighborhood as the plaintiff was upheld in Zappaunbulso, but only after a thorough factual review. In contrast, the restraining order in the current case lacks clarity regarding the "other places" the defendant is barred from, which parallels the situation in State v. Finamore, where a contempt charge was deemed defective due to an unclear restraining order. Domestic violence orders typically focus on conduct, prohibiting contact and harassment, rather than specific locations. The current order is overly broad, endangering the defendant's lawful presence in public spaces, such as attending his children’s soccer games. The State needed to demonstrate that the defendant "knowingly" violated the restraining order, but evidence showed he was unaware that attending the game with his ex-wife nearby constituted a violation. Previous cases established that trivial violations should not be prosecuted, and the complaint here did not present a valid charge of contempt or harassment. Consequently, the conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Family Part to amend the final restraining order by removing the invalid provisions. The ex-wife had previously filed a domestic violence complaint, but it was dismissed before a hearing.
