NCJ Number
174520
Journal
Seton Hall Law Review Volume: 29 Issue: 1 Dated: 1998 Pages: 342-366
Date Published
1998
Length
25 pages
Annotation
This article examines whether the invocation of domestic violence law in certain harassment cases trivializes the plight of true victims of domestic violence and misuses the legislative vehicle which was developed to protect them.
Abstract
The article explores the law dealing with domestic violence; discusses the rise of the battered woman defense and three recent New Jersey cases that address harassment in the domestic violence context; examines the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision State v. Hoffman and its effects on the interpretation of harassment under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA); and discusses the de minimis infraction statute and its application to cases of harassment in the domestic violence context. The PDVA was enacted to ensure that victims of domestic violence are provided with the same legal protections as all citizens. The three New Jersey convictions discussed here were reversed at the appellate level, but three innocent men were initially branded as abusers, barred from their homes, and strapped with substantial attorney's fees and legal expenses. Prosecutors must take responsibility to help ensure that unreasonable harassment claims are not prosecuted. Defense attorneys must use the de minimis infraction provision and move to dismiss frivolous charges of harassment brought under the PDVA. Finally, trial judges must dismiss domestic violence harassment prosecutions that would result in absurd applications of harassment statutes. Notes