By: Charles F. Vuotto, Jr., Esq.
The Appellate Division recently published a decision in A.A.R. v. J.R.C.[1] making it clear that procedural due process requires judges, before domestic violence trial, to inform defendants both of the serious consequences resulting from the entry of a final restraining order (FRO) and their right to retain legal counsel. This column suggests that domestic violence complaints served upon defendants include a specific rider advising them of their rights and the possible ramifications of the entry of an FRO. Further, it is suggested that trial judges read to defendants from a pre-approved script provided by the Administrative Offices of the Courts (AOC)summarizing those rights and ramifications before commencement of a domestic violence trial.
In A.A.R. v. J.R.C., the defendant appealed from an April 14, 2021 FRO based on the predicate act of assault. The underlying facts concerning the alleged domestic violence are not relevant to this column. What is important is that neither party was represented by counsel at trial. At the beginning of the FRO hearing, the judge asked defendant if he was ready to proceed with trial, and the defendant answered in the affirmative. The trial judge did not inform defendant of his right to retain counsel, or of the serious consequences that could ensue if an FRO was entered against him prior to trial. The trial judge entered an FRO at the conclusion of the trial. It was at this point that the trial judge detailed the consequences of the FRO, including the fact that defendant’s fingerprints and photographs would be included in the New Jersey Domestic Violence Registry. As the judge imposed those consequences, defendant stated, “I feel like…[a]t this point, I’m going to need a lawyer[.]” The trial judge, however, denied defendant’s request because he “already heard the case.” The appeal followed.
In ruling upon the defendant’s appeal, the Appellate Court held that:
“The right to seek counsel is an important due process right that affords defendants a meaningful opportunity to defend against a complaint in domestic violence matters[.]’ D.N., 429 N.J. Super. at 606. In that regard, we held that due process does not require the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in a domestic violence proceeding seeking an FRO. Ibid. Nevertheless, due process does require that a defendant understands that he or she has a right to retain legal counsel and receives a reasonable opportunity to retain an attorney. Ibid.”[2]
In addition to the foregoing, the Appellate Court made it clear that,
“Relatedly, we conclude that due process also requires trial courts to apprise domestic violence defendants, in advance of trial, of the serious consequences should an FRO be entered against them.” Id.
Quoting from Peterson v. Peterson,[3] the Court noted that:
“Once [an FRO] is entered, a defendant is subject[ed] to fingerprinting, N.J.S.A. 53:1-15, and the Administrative Office of the Courts maintains a central registry of all persons who have had domestic violence restraining orders entered against them, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-34. Violation of a restraining order constitutes contempt, and a second or subsequent non-indictable domestic violence contempt offense requires a minimum term of thirty days imprisonment. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-30. The issuing court may also impose a number of other wide-reaching sanctions impairing a defendant’s interests in liberty and freedom in order “to prevent further abuse.” N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b).”[4]
In addition to the foregoing, the Appellate Court in A.A.R. v. J.R.C. noted that, “Furthermore, familial relationships may be fundamentally altered when a restraining order is in effect. Chernesky v. Fedorczyk, 346 N.J. Super. 34, 40, 786 A.2d 881 (App. Div. 2001).”[5]
The Appellate Court in A.A.R. v. J.R.C. noted the trial judge failed to inform Defendant in advance of trial that he had a right to retain legal counsel and that failure alone would have required reversal. In addition, it was not until after the issuance of the FRO did the trial judge inform the Defendant of the significant consequences of the entry of an FRO including placement on a domestic abuser registry . The Appellate Court concluded by noting that in any event, advising any Defendant of their right to retain counsel without also explaining legal exposures is simply an empty platitude.
Although this author believes it was likely an innocent oversight by the trial judge in A.A.R. v. J.R.C. and most judges do give such advisement of the right to counsel and possibly the serious ramification stemming from the issuance of an FRO prior to the commencement of a domestic violence trial, it is herein suggested that a notice be appended to all domestic violence complaints expressly advising defendants of their right to counsel and the serious ramifications stemming from the entry of an FRO. A shorter version in the form of an AOC-pre-approved script should be created for trial judges to read to defendants prior to the commencement of any domestic violence trial. A suggestion of the proposed notice and script are annexed to this column.
RIDER
PROPOSED NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS AND SCRIPT FOR TRIAL JUDGES
****NOTICE****
You have been served with a Complaint under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. §§2C:25-17 to 2C:25-35. Procedural due process requires that you be informed prior to the domestic violence trial both of the serious consequences resulting from the entry of Final Restraining Order (FRO) and of your right to obtain legal counsel.
It is recommended that you consider consulting with a qualified New Jersey attorney with experience in Domestic Violence matters. You have the right to consult with an attorney of your choosing.
The issuance of an FRO has serious consequences to the personal and professional lives of those who are found to have committed an act of domestic violence, which the New Jersey legislature has characterized as a serious crime against society. The following list represents some but not all of the serious consequences you may face if an FRO is entered against you:
You may be ordered to make or continue to make rent or mortgage payments on the residence occupied by the Plaintiff if you are found to have a duty to support the Plaintiff or other dependent household members.
[1] A.A.R. v. J.R.C., No.-2804-20, 2022 N.J. Super. LEXIS 51 (App. Div. April 25, 2022)
[2] A.A.R. v. J.R.C., 2022 N.J. Super. LEXIS 51 at pages 3, 4.
[3] 374 N.J. Super. 116, 124, 863 A.2d 1059 (App. Div. 2005)
[4] A.A.R. v. J.R.C., 2022 N.J. Super. LEXIS 51 at pages 4, 5.
[5] Id.