former husband. State v. L.C., 283 N.J. Super. 441 (App.
Div. 1995), certif. denied, 143 N.J. 325 (1996).
- Two mailings of torn-up support orders did not
constitute harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4a.
However, it did constitute contempt under N.J.S.A.
2C:29-9b, because the conduct violated the final
domestic violence restraining order prohibiting contact
by defendant. State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564 (1997). - Even if defendant’s conduct in returning the
children to the front door, in returning a car seat to his
wife, and in requesting the lawn mower in an effort to
comply with the pendente lite order did violate the final
restraining order, it was nevertheless de minimus and so
trivial as to be non-actionable. State v. Krupinski, 321
N.J. Super. 34, 38 (App. Div. 1999).
C. Drug Offender Restraining Order Act of 1999 (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5.4 to 5.8)
This Act mandates the issuance of court orders
prohibiting, notwithstanding certain exceptions, per-
sons charged with drug distribution or gun-related
offenses from returning to the place where the criminal
offense occurred. Persons who violate the conditions of
the order shall be subject to civil contempt; criminal
contempt; revocation of bail, probation or parole; or any
combination of these sanctions.
II. PUNITIVE CONTEMPT
A. Contempt in Facie Curiae
- Definition
Contempt in the face of the court is defined as
misconduct in open court, in the presence of a judge,
which disturbs the court’s business and where immediate
punishment is essential to prevent demoralization of the
court’s authority before the public. In re Daniels, 118
N.J. 51, 62, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951 (1990); In re
Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 275 (1948); Cooke v. United States,
267 U.S. 517, 536 (1925).
2. Rules Governing Contempt in Facie Curiae
The order of contempt shall recite the facts and
contain a certification by the judge that he or she saw or
heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that
the contemnor was willfully contumacious. R. 1:10-1.
3. Procedure for Dealing With Contempt in Facie Curiae
a. A judge may act summarily, without notice or
order to show cause, when a person’s conduct in the
actual presence of the court has the capacity to
undermine the court’s authority and to interfere or
obstruct the orderly administration of justice. In re
Daniels, 118 N.J. at 61.b. This extraordinary power should be exercised
sparingly and only in the rarest of circumstances. Id.c. An adjudication of contempt absent a recitation of
facts and certification is procedurally defective. State v.
Quintana, 270 N.J. Super. 676, 682 (App. Div. 1994).4. Rationale for Summary Proceedings
Summary proceedings, in the case of contempt in
facie curiae, are justified when conduct in the actual
presence of the court has the capacity to undermine the
court’s authority and to interfere with or obstruct the
orderly administration of justice. In re Daniels, 118 N.J.
at 61. Summary contempt, punishment imposed
without the familiar procedures that ordinarily attend
the criminal law, is an extraordinary power to be exercised
sparingly and only in the rarest of circumstances.
Necessity not only justifies the summary contempt
power, but also limits that power by defining both
settings for its exercise and procedural safeguards. Id. at
60-62.5. Scope of Appellate Review
Every summary conviction by a court for contempt
shall be reviewable on the law and facts. The appellate
court shall render such judgment and order for
enforcement thereof as it deems just under the
circumstances. R. 2:10-4; see In re Duane, Morris &
Hecksher, 315 N.J. Super. 304, 311 (App. Div. 1998)
(holding in a contempt case that the court must review
the record and make a de novo determination).6. Mens Rea
Defendant’s infraction must be “knowing and
willful” and “the minimum standard is one of a voluntary
action known by the actor to be wrongful or one that he
reasonably should have been aware was wrongful. Matter
of Daniels, 118 N.J. at 69, citing In re Dellinger, 461 F.2d
389, 400 (7th Cir. 1972).