Jenny Berse, This is the case. Thank you.
The pertinent part being:
"When considering the admissibility of evidence of other crimes or wrongs under N.J.R.E. 404(b), courts are instructed to apply the standard adopted by the Supreme Court in State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992), which requires careful analysis of four factors: 1. The evidence of the other crime must be admissible as relevant to a material issue; 2. It must be similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the offense charged; 3. The evidence of the other crime must be clear and convincing; and 4. The probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its apparent prejudice. [Cofield, supra, 127 N.J. at 338 (citing Abraham P. Ordover, Balancing the Presumptions of Guilt and Innocence: Rules 404(b), 608(b), And 609(a), 38 Emory L.J., 135, 160 (1989)).]"
------------------------------
Thomas King Esq.
Kinnelon NJ
(973)750-8348
[email protected]www.njfamily.law www.njdivorce.law
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-20-2017 19:00
From: Jenny Berse
Subject: Prior DV order as evidence at FRO hearing
Perhaps it was RG v. RG - see attached
------------------------------
Jenny Berse, Esq.
Cranford NJ 07016
(855) 326-5291
[email protected]
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-20-2017 18:27
From: Thomas King
Subject: Prior DV order as evidence at FRO hearing
Mi Gente: I was just denied an FRO in Hudson before Judge Sciancalepore. I was troubled that during my cross of defendant the judge sustained an objection to my questioning defendant about his prior DV order and DV events from 2009 with his prior wife. The 2009 case and this one were eerily similar. When I pressed the issue, the judge referred to a March 2017 published case called "JR" which he said prohibited introducing prior DV orders or events. The judge ended up holding that an assault had occurred, but he did not think a FRO was necessary as he did not think a future event of abuse was likely. My concern is the prior DV matter is directly related to the likelihood of a future bad act, as well as rebutting his testimony that he was not violent.
Does anyone know the 2017 JR case Judge Sciancalepore was referring? My fastcase and google didnt bring it up. It seems to me that the probative value would outweigh any prejudicial effect in a bench trial as well.
Tom King
------------------------------
Thomas King Esq.
Kinnelon NJ
(973)750-8348
[email protected]
www.njfamily.law www.njdivorce.law
------------------------------