NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only
  • 1.  Trial Court Newly Published Opinion on Provocation Defense to DV Charge: Judge Lawrence Jones (who else?)

    Posted 11-11-2015 04:43 PM

    Judge: No Restraining Orders for Plaintiffs Who Incite Violence

    Michael Booth, New Jersey Law Journal

    November 11, 2015

    A New Jersey judge has suggested guidelines for other judges to follow in domestic violence cases in which a plaintiff who is seeking a restraining order is actually the one who instigated the violent act.

    Ocean County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Jones, in an unpublished opinion decided in July but released on Nov. 10, said a defendant who is facing a restraining order can use provocation as a defense, particularly if he or she has no prior history of violence and was merely acting out in response to the plaintiff's actions.

    "Even the most non-violent, docile and peace-loving of individuals may sometimes be provoked into acting impulsively, immaturely and regrettably, in direct and immediately response to such instigation," Jones said in R.C. v. R.W.

    The case involves a man, R.C., and a woman, R.W., who had been living together for several years and who had two children. R.C. worked to support the family and R.W. took care of the children and was studying to be a dental technician, the opinion said.

    The couple had two cellphones, both in R.C.'s name, but R.W. had the exclusive use of one of them. They also had two cars, a Nissan and a Buick. Both cars were in R.C.'s name, but R.W. used the Buick and considered it her car and helped pay for it, the opinion said.

    R.W. also had bought R.C. a Sony PlayStation video game console for his birthday, but the children used it as well, according to the opinion.

    By June 2015, the relationship began to deteriorate to the point where R.C. turned off the electrical service to their apartment, prompting R.W. to move, with the children, to her mother's house. R.C. eventually moved to his cousin's house, the opinion said.

    R.W. sought no child support and R.C. did not take action on custody or to claim possession of the Buick, the cellphone R.W. used or the PlayStation, the opinion said.

    Things turned ugly on July 12, 2015, when R.C. went to where R.W. was living and, because he suspected she was dating someone else, demanded to see her cellphone. He grabbed the phone from her and eventually discovered that she had been communicating with another man, the opinion said.

    R.C. called R.W. a "whore" and opened the trunk to the Buick, demanding that the PlayStation and the Buick be given to him. R.W. objected and said the Buick was the only source of transportation for herself and the children, the opinion said.

    At that point, R.C. picked up a cinderblock and threw it through the rear window of the Buick, shattering it. R.W. responded by throwing a brick at R.C.'s Nissan, damaging the body. R.C. then threw several bricks through the Buick's other windows, rendering it non-drivable, the opinion said.

    R.C. filed a domestic violence complaint against R.W. and sought a restraining order, the opinion said.

    Jones denied the request, however.


    hanan.gif

    Hanan M. Isaacs, Esq.

     

    t 609.683.7400   f 609.921.8982

    e [email protected]   w www.hananisaacs.com

    4499 Route 27, Kingston NJ


    IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email transmission and any documents, files, or email messages attached to it, are confidential and protected by the attorney client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not [email protected], or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, then we hereby notify you that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this email transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, then please immediately notify [email protected] by email -- or by fax to (609) 921-8982 -- or by telephone to (609) 683-7400 -- and then promptly delete the message and any attachments from your computer. Thank you.



  • 2.  RE: Trial Court Newly Published Opinion on Provocation Defense to DV Charge: Judge Lawrence Jones (who else?)

    Posted 11-19-2015 01:06 PM
    Another case last week, this one an unpublished App Div case, where the issue of provocation was relevant (here, to overturning an FRO rather than denying one): https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8840990722279010939 .

    The decision focuses on a Silver v. Silver analysis - whether an FRO was necessary to prevent future violence (an issue the App Div is very, very inconsistent about - this is going to have to go up to the SCT at some point).

    However, the App Div also notes:

    As the record shows, the incident at issue was in part precipitated by plaintiff. According to the testimony, plaintiff was not invited to the party at the home of defendants' parents. Plaintiff arrived to pick up the parties' child. The child was playing in another room, and there was no reason for plaintiff to enter the kitchen where the incident with defendant's girlfriend took place.




    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>





  • 3.  RE: Trial Court Newly Published Opinion on Provocation Defense to DV Charge: Judge Lawrence Jones (who else?)

    Posted 11-19-2015 03:21 PM

    While I agree with the court's decision in this particular case, we must be careful not to apply this defense (?) in all cases. Each case should be analyzed on its own merits.