New Jersey
Zappaunbulso v.
Zappaunbulso 842 A. 2d 300 (NJ
2004)
Defendant
appealed a Family Court's ruling ordering him to move out of a house in his
ex-wife's neighborhood. The
appellate court affirmed the judgment.
Defendant's ex-wife obtained several restraining orders against her
ex-husband because he had harassed, stalked, and verbally and physically
assaulted her. The restraining
order prohibited him from committing further acts of violence and from parking
in her neighbor's driveway so that he could watch her home. Defendant then attempted to move into a
house in his ex-wife's neighborhood that would have provided him with a direct
view of his ex-wife's home. The
ex-wife filed a motion to prohibit defendant from doing so. Without advanced notice to the parties,
the trial judge visited the ex-wife's neighborhood to gain clarification of the
diagrams that the parties had provided about the location of their homes. The judge placed her observations on
record when the hearing resumed. Based on defendant's documented history of
stalking and harassing his ex-wife and the prior restraining orders, the trial
judge ordered that he move out of the house within 30 days and not reside in his
ex-wife's immediate neighborhood because his purpose in moving into the
neighborhood was to continue his course of harassment.
State v.
Lozada , 357 N.J. Super.
468, 815 A.2d 1002 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
2003)
The court reversed the defendant's
stalking conviction and held that the lower court erred in failing to sever the
charges of stalking and contempt of a restraining order. The court stated that the jury's
knowledge that there had been a restraining order was likely to prejudice the
defendant's right to a fair trial of the issue of whether he is guilty of
stalking. The court found that
where the degree of the stalking offense is in question, the issue of whether
there was stalking should be tried first without reference to any element,
including a restraining order, that would elevate the crime to a higher
degree. If the defendant was found guilty of stalking,
then the trial court should try the issue of degree before the same
jury.
State v. Cardell
,
318 N.J. Super. 175, 723 A.2d 111 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999
)
The court upheld the defendant's
stalking conviction and found that the stalking statute was not
unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
The court stated that there was no constitutional right to threaten other
people in the manner prohibited by the stalking statute. They found that the statute fully
protected a defendant's constitutional rights. A person could not run afoul of the law
unless their conduct was purposely directed at the victim and was such that
would cause a reasonable person to fear physical harm. The defendant maintained the prohibited
visual and physical proximity on more than two occasions, and his conduct was
threatening, purposeful, and directed at the victim. The
entire course of conduct would have caused a reasonable person to fear bodily
injury or death and a defendant acting in that manner would or should have known
that he was placing his victim in fear.
State v. Saunders, 302 N.J. Super. 509,
695 A.2d 722 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997)