A.M. VS. M.H.A.H. (FV-07-3276-18, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2020 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0675-18T4
A.M.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
M.H.A.H.,
Defendant-Respondent.
_________________________
Submitted October 28, 2019 – Decided January 16, 2020
Before Judges Sabatino, Sumners and Natali.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket
No. FV-07-3276-18.
Lowenstein Sandler LLP, attorneys for appellant
(Justin A. Corbalis, on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from the Family Part's denial of her application for a final
restraining order (FRO) against defendant, her estranged husband, under the
Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. Her
domestic violence complaint alleged defendant committed the predicate acts of
assault, harassment, and stalking. She contends the trial court erred in failing to
find that she established the predicate act of stalking under the PDVA. Plaintiff
also contends the court abused its discretion by refusing to admit into evidence
the substance of defendant's text messages and a voicemail sent to plaintiff's cell
phone. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the dismissal of the complaint,
order reinstatement of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and remand the
matter for the court to determine whether an FRO should be issued against
defendant.
I.
On June 2, 2018, plaintiff obtained a TRO against defendant under the
PDVA based on allegations of assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1, harassment, N.J.S.A.
2C:33-4, and stalking, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10 (the anti-stalking statute). See
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a). Eight days later, an FRO hearing was held in which
plaintiff was represented by counsel, and defendant, with the assistance of an
Arabic speaking interpreter, appeared without counsel. The following narrative
was provided through the parties' testimony.
A-0675-18T4
2
Not long after the parties' February 2017 marriage, defendant became
increasingly paranoid that plaintiff was unfaithful and purchased several devices
to spy on her. Beginning in April, plaintiff began finding cameras and voice
recorders in their home that were disguised as a wall charger, battery power-
pack, wall clock, watch, and a smoke detector. Upon being confronted by
plaintiff, defendant confessed to planting the devices, but claimed they were
never used.
Plaintiff testified that in November defendant was following her when she
left their home. Plaintiff explained that defendant did not have a driver's license,
so he would pay people to follow her while he hid in the backseat of the car.
She also claimed that almost daily, whenever she would go somewhere, he
would appear out of nowhere.
On one occasion in May 2018, plaintiff did not park her car in her usual
parking spot at the preschool where she worked. Defendant in turn sent her
accusatory text messages claiming he knew she wasn't at work and demanding
to know what she was doing. Plaintiff then spotted defendant outside the school.
When she complained to him about the situation, he apologized and tried to
appease her by offering her chocolate.
A-0675-18T4
3
Plaintiff also related that in January 2018, after she found another spy
device in her house, defendant threatened to tell her family about her alleged
unfaithfulness. According to plaintiff, who is Muslim, defendant's accusation
of infidelity would cause her family to want to kill her. She therefore cancelled
a planned trip to visit her family overseas. Plaintiff claimed defendant informed
local shopkeepers and others in their community that plaintiff was unfaithful,
thus making it difficult and embarrassing for plaintiff to be seen around town.
When questioned by the court about the alleged threats, defendant stated ,
"I have nothing against her to begin with, but it just made me so angry that I just
said that." On cross examination, defendant stated, "I was just mad and I was
just venting. . . . I never talked to her family about the topic at all. . . . I don't
have any proof on her that she was cheating." Defendant admitted to only
threatening to tell plaintiff's family once, and that plaintiff was lying about him
making numerous threats.
On June 2, the relationship became physical during an argument at the
parties' home. Plaintiff claimed defendant grabbed her throat and stated, "I
swear to God you're going to fucking regret everything and you're going to see
what's going to happen to you," until she punched him with her elbow and
"pushed him on his chest." According to defendant, plaintiff was pushing him,
A-0675-18T4
4
so he tried to leave the house, but not before telling her to "go make me food."
He then stated, "[she] held me from my arm … and she said where are you going
you dog? And then she punched me like five or six punches in my stomach."
Defendant claimed he tried to push plaintiff away, but she scratched his face and
told him she was calling the cops.
As a result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff stated she shied away from
others in public, cried at work, and feared for her safety.
During the hearing, the court denied plaintiff's attempt to admit into
evidence several text messages and a voicemail regarding defendant's alleged
stalking, all of which were in Arabic. Plaintiff proffered printouts of the text
messages with corresponding printouts of English translations. The English
versions contained a seal and notary stamp, the handwritten words "translated
by," the notary public's signature, and a hand written date. The court found the
evidence inadmissible because there was no certification the translation was
true. Plaintiff, however, was allowed to testify about the contents of the text
messages sent to her and how they made her feel.
Included in the translated text messages were the following statements:
• "You are lying and you didn't leave anything for me
to say and I will let Hamada hear all the recorders[.]"
• "And I will make everyone hear the recorders[.]"
A-0675-18T4
5
• "You know what even the way you breathe is very
clear in the recorder yesterday[.]"
• "[Plaintiff], I swear I'm going right now and I will
meet with your relatives[.]"
• "I just spoke to Osama and we will meet in Main
Street and Ali is coming too[.]"
• "If, you don't answer consider it as [a] threat. I swear
to God I'm going by Ali[.]"
• "I'm going toward your uncle['s] house I swear[.]"
• "Come, now to Main Street by yourself before I
cause you a big problem with no end. You have only
15 minutes, if you like[.]"
The court further denied plaintiff's request for defendant's interpreter to
interpret defendant's voicemail but allowed it to be played so the court could
gauge the tone of defendant's voice in the message. Plaintiff then testified that
listening to the voicemail made her scared to go home, after which she called
friends to stay at her home with her. The translated voicemail revealed:
Look at me, I know exactly what you are doing. I'm not
scared. Fuck the papers and fuck America. You took
the phone with you to the bathroom to cause a problem
so you can say [I'm] crazy. I swear to you that I watch
every detail you do. Just picture how I watch even
when you drink water, now you can imagine what I
have in my hands? I'm a man who knows what I'm
saying and I swear to God you will fucking regret
everything; you [plaintiff]. I didn't want to marry you
A-0675-18T4
6
but you begged me now I will show you what I am
going to do to you. Do whatever you want. Go call
Amman, China, Saudi Arabia, Malta. I don't care.
[B]ye[.]
At the hearing's conclusion, the court rendered an oral decision and
entered an order vacating the TRO and dismissing plaintiff's complaint. The
court determined plaintiff had not met her burden to prove assault; finding it
could not believe one party's version of the altercation over the other party. It
also found that although defendant's actions were rude and annoying, they did
not reach the level of harassment. As for the charge of stalking, despite finding
that on at least one occasion defendant placed a device in the home to spy on
plaintiff, the court was unpersuaded stalking occurred. The court stated "there
is discussion of divorce that's been ongoing for quite some time, obviously
claims of infidelity which have not been founded. And I have to find that
[defendant's] purpose was to cause the [p]laintiff to fear for her safety." The
court found defendant's actions did not rise to the level of domestic violence,
ruling:
Reasonable or not, that's not with the purpose to cause
her to fear for her safety. She may have, but the
standard is a reasonable person. It's an objective
standard, not a subjective standard. So whether this
person feared, I can't find that it's reasonable or not,
because I don't have anything to base it on. There's no
prior history.
A-0675-18T4
7
The court reasoned that because plaintiff knew defendant was following her due
to his suspicion of her infidelity, his actions did not rise to the level of domestic
violence "from a stalking standpoint."
II.
On appeal, plaintiff raises two points of contention with the trial court's
decision. She first contends the court misinterpreted the anti-stalking statute by
focusing on defendant's state of mind in direct contravention of State v. Ghandi,
201 N.J. 161 (2010). She next contends the court abused its discretion by
refusing to admit into evidence her text messages and voicemail translations or
otherwise allow the courtroom interpreter to verify them which would have
corroborated her allegations of claims of assault, harassment, and stalking.
Before addressing these arguments, we discuss the principles that guide our
analysis.
Our scope of review in this circumstance is limited. Cesare v. Cesare, 154
N.J. 394, 411 (1998). A trial court's fact-finding should be upheld unless it is
not supported by "adequate, substantial and credible" evidence. Pascale v.
Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 33 (1988) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins.
Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). A family court's fact-finding is afforded
deference due to its "special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters. . . ."
A-0675-18T4
8
Cesare, 154 N.J. at 413. The "trial court hears the case, sees and observes the
witnesses, [and] hears them testify," providing it with a "better perspective than
a reviewing court in evaluating the veracity of witnesses." Pascale, 113 N.J. at
33 (quoting Gallo v. Gallo, 66 N.J. Super. 1, 5 (App. Div. 1961)).
This court, however, owes no special deference to the trial court's legal
interpretation of a statute, or "the legal consequences that flow from established
facts. . . ." Hayes v. Delamotte, 231 N.J. 373, 387 (2018) (quoting Manalapan
Realty, LP v. Manalapan Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).
When determining whether to grant an FRO pursuant to the PDVA, a trial
court must make two distinct determinations. Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super.
112, 125-27 (App. Div. 2006). Under the first Silver prong, "the judge must
determine whether the plaintiff has proven, by a preponderance of the credible
evidence, that one or more of the predicate acts set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a)
has occurred." Id. at 125. Under the second prong, a judge must determine
whether a final restraining order is required to protect the plaintiff from future
acts or threats of violence. Id. at 127. In reaching that determination, there must
be a finding that "relief is necessary to prevent further abuse." J.D. v. M.D.F.,
207 N.J. 458, 476 (2011) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)). It is well established
the commission of one of the predicate acts of domestic violence set forth in
A-0675-18T4
9
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a) does not, on its own, "automatically . . . warrant the
issuance of a domestic violence [restraining] order." Corrente v. Corrente, 281
N.J. Super. 243, 248 (App. Div. 1995). Although that determination "is most
often perfunctory and self-evident, the guiding standard is whether a restraining
order is necessary, upon an evaluation of the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:25 -
29(a)(1) to -29(a)(6), to protect the victim from an immediate danger or to
prevent further abuse." Silver, 387 N.J. Super. at 127.
A.
Since plaintiff contends the court erred in its interpretation of the anti-
stalking statute, we examine the statute and its interpretation, as well as
application to the facts of this case. In accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10(b):
[a] person is guilty of stalking, a crime of the fourth
degree, if he purposefully or knowingly engages in a
course of conduct directed at a specific person that
would cause a reasonable person to fear for his safety
or the safety of a third person or suffer other emotional
distress.
For the purposes of this statute:
(1) "Course of conduct" means repeatedly maintaining
a visual or physical proximity to a person; directly or
indirectly, or through third parties, by any action,
method, device, or means, following, monitoring,
observing, surveilling, threatening, or communicating
to or about a person, or interfering with a person's
property; repeatedly committing harassment against a
A-0675-18T4
10
person; or repeatedly conveying, or causing to be
conveyed, verbal or written threats or threats conveyed
by any other means of communication or threats
implied by conduct of a combination thereof directed at
or toward a person.
(2) "Repeatedly" means on two or more occasions.
(3) "Emotional distress" means significant suffering or
distress.
(4) "Cause a reasonable person to fear" means to cause
fear which a reasonable victim, similarly situated,
would have under the circumstances.
[N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10(a).]
In Ghandi, our Supreme Court held "that the Legislature intended to cast
a wide net of protection for stalking victims by broadly prohibiting and
punishing persistent, unwanted, and frightening behaviors." 201 N.J. at 187.
The anti-stalking statute was implemented "to intervene in repetitive harassing
or threatening behavior before the victim has actually been physically attacked."
H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309, 329 (2003) (quoting State v. Saunders, 302 N.J.
Super. 509, 520 (App. Div. 1997)). Therefore, "acts of actual violence are not
required to support a finding of domestic violence." Ibid. Granting an FRO to
a victim of stalking "furthers the . . . Act's goal of 'assur[ing] the victims of
domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse the law can provi de.'"
Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Cesare, 154 N.J. at 399).
A-0675-18T4
11
Like the situation in this case, H.E.S. involved an estranged husband
covertly placing surveillance cameras in his wife's bedroom. 175 N.J. at 314-
15. The Court found this to be a violation of the anti-stalking statute given the
presence of cameras constitutes repeated action taking place "over a sufficient
period or on a sufficient number of occasions to establish a 'course of conduct'
under the statute." Id. at 329 (quoting H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 349 N.J. Super. 332, 350
(App. Div. 2002)). The Court rejected the husband's defense that the conduct
did not constitute stalking because he did not behave in a threatening manner.
Id. at 328. In analyzing N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10(b), the Court adopted a prior
statement by our court regarding the anti-stalking statute's elements:
1) defendant engaged in speech or conduct that was
directed at or toward a person, 2) that speech or conduct
occurred on at least two occasions, 3) defendant
purposely engaged in speech or a course of conduct that
is capable of causing a reasonable person to fear for
herself or her immediate family bodily injury or death.
[H.E.S., 175 N.J. at 329.]
About seven years following its decision in H.E.S., the Court expanded on this
interpretation of the anti-stalking statute in Ghandi, stating:
. . . what is most interesting about our opinion in H.E.S.,
. . . is what was not said. Nowhere did we inquire into
or focus on the intent of the defendant in producing fear
of bodily injury or death in his victim. Quite the
contrary, we firmly established that the appropriate
A-0675-18T4
12
examination for the fact-finder is what a reasonable
person, imbued with the personal knowledge and
experience of the actual victim, would have
experienced as a result of the defendant's conduct. Id.
at 330.
In summary, based on the statutory language and the
history to the statutory offense of stalking, we do not
discern a legislative intent to restrict the applicability
of the anti-stalking statute to a stalker-defendant who
purposefully or knowingly intended that his course of
conduct would cause a reasonable victim to fear bodily
injury or death. Rather the plain language of the
statutory offense, reasonably read, prohibits a
defendant from purposefully or knowingly engaging in
a course of conduct, as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:12-
10(a)(1), that would cause such fear in an objectively
reasonable person
[201 N.J. at 187.]
Based upon Gandhi and H.E.S., we agree with plaintiff that the trial court
misinterpreted the anti-stalking statute by considering whether it was
defendant's purpose to cause plaintiff to fear for her safety. Plaintiff testified
that she was in fear for her safety due to defendant's conduct. The court did not
find the testimony lacked credibility. Of significance, the court found defendant
had placed a surveillance camera in the home. It was also uncontroverted that
defendant followed plaintiff to and from work on a regular basis and that
defendant paid a third party to drive a car following her while he was secreted
in the rear seat. Further, plaintiff's testimony that, as a Muslim wife, she could
A-0675-18T4
13
be killed or physically harmed if it was proven she was unfaithful, went
unchallenged by defendant. We therefore conclude defendant violated the anti-
stalking statute because a reasonably objective person would fear for herself
under the totality of these circumstances. The absence of a prior history of
domestic violence among the parties does not negate our conclusion.
We must next determine if an FRO was necessary to protect plaintiff
"from an immediate danger or to prevent further abuse." Silver, 387 N.J. Super.
at 127. Because the court found defendant did not commit a predicate act of
stalking, it did not decide whether an FRO was necessary. Therefore, we remand
for the trial court to consider this issue. Upon receipt of this decision, the court
shall immediately reinstate the TRO, which it vacated, and have it served upon
defendant.
In remanding, we recognize that almost a year-and-a-half has expired
since the court's ruling and we have no knowledge if defendant's conduct
towards plaintiff since the ruling would have warranted the need for an FRO.
Additionally, as the trial court correctly observed in its dismissal of plaintiff's
complaint, plaintiff was not prevented from filing a new complaint and obtaining
an FRO against defendant if the situation warranted it. Nevertheless, our
decision is based upon the trial evidence and applicable law when this matter
A-0675-18T4
14
was decided by the court. Nothing in our decision should be interpreted as
expressing our view on the result of the remanded proceedings.
B.
Plaintiff argues the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to admit
into evidence her cell phone text messages and voicemail translations from
Arabic to English. She asserts she substantially complied with the New Jersey
Judiciary Language Access Plan (LAP), and where she was not in compliance,
the LAP provides exceptions for emergent domestic violence cases like hers.
Plaintiff argues that if the text messages and voicemail translations were
admitted into evidence, or had the court interpreter been allowed to interpret the
text messages and voicemail, it would have corroborated and bolstered her
testimony as to the predicate acts of domestic violence alleged in her complaint,
resulting in a guilty finding against defendant.
Standard 4.4 of the LAP states "[u]nless otherwise permitted by the court,
all evidentiary documents are to be presented in English and all non-English
documents intended to be introduced into evidence must be accompanied by a
certified translation." Administrative Directive #01-17, "New Jersey Judiciary
Language Access Plan" (Jan. 10, 2017). However, under Standard 4.4's Best
Practices section, subsection (b), the LAP also provides:
A-0675-18T4
15
[I]n certain circumstances a judge may need to assess a
recording or text message in a language other than
English without the benefit of prior transcription and
translation. For example, in an emergent domestic
violence hearing, where pretrial discovery is not
permitted unless good cause is shown, the judge will
generally not require the victim to provide a transcript
and translation of a cell phone recording. Instead, the
judge may seek to have a court interpreter interpret the
recording or text message during the course of the
hearing.
We agree with plaintiff that she substantially complied with the LAP, and
the court mistakenly applied its discretion by not to allowing her to submit the
substance of the text messages and voicemail into evidence, or have the
interpreter interpret them. Plaintiff's proposed translation exhibits were
notarized, stamped, dated, and signed by a translator, even if they were not
"certified translations" as required by the LAP. Our doctrine of substantial
compliance avoids the harsh consequences that the court apparently believed it
had to adhere to regarding the technical requirements of the LAP and promotes
justice and fairness considering plaintiff substantially satisfied the LAP's
underlying purpose to provide an accurate translation of defendant's
communications. See Galik v. Clara Maass Med. Ctr., 167 N.J. 341, 352 (2001);
Anske v. Borough of Palisades Park, 139 N.J. Super. 342, 347 (App. Div. 1976).
A-0675-18T4
16
Plaintiff in fact took steps to comply with the LAP by getting the messages
translated, and authenticated by a public notary, despite the LAP expressly
suggesting it is not necessary in domestic violence cases. Plus, admission of
the evidence would have been fair because there was no prejudice to defendant
as he would have had the opportunity to provide his own evidence or explanation
on the matter. See Mayfield v. Cmty. Med. Assocs., P.A., 335 N.J. Super. 198,
206 (App. Div. 2000). We further agree with plaintiff that the court should have
allowed the courtroom interpreter, who was assisting defendant, to interpret for
the court the short and concise text messages and voicemail. Under the
circumstances, the court should have admitted this evidence given a clear
legislative mandate to prevent domestic violence and the absence of any
prejudice to defendant. We, however, limit the admissibility of the text
messages and voicemail to the sole issue on remand – whether an FRO should
be issued based upon stalking.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-0675-18T4
17