(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for
the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please
note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).
Argued January 7, l997 -- Decided May 6, 1997
POLLOCK, J., writing for a unanimous Court.
The issue in this appeal is whether a defendant in an action under the Prevention of Domestic
Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -33 (the “Act”), is entitled to the return of firearms if the trial court,
after dismissing the domestic violence complaint, concludes that the defendant poses a threat to public
health, safety, or welfare.
S.D. and defendant, J.W.D., are divorced. Before their divorce, S.D. filed two domestic violence
complaints against J.W.D. in two years. In June 1992, when S.D. filed the first domestic violence complaint,
the police confiscated J.W.D.'s guns and firearms purchaser's identification card. Thereafter, S.D.
dismissed the complaint. On dismissal of the complaint, J.W.D. wrote to the Hunterdon County
Prosecutor's office requesting the return of the guns and the card. The prosecutor's office returned the
guns and the card.
In or about December l994, S.D. filed a second domestic violence complaint and obtained a
temporary restraining order that again required confiscation of J.W.D.'s guns and identification card. After
a hearing, the Family Part dismissed the complaint and dissolved the temporary restraining order.
Thereafter, J.W.D. sent another letter to the prosecutor's office, again requesting the return of his guns and
identification card. After conducting an investigation, the prosecutor filed an objection to the return of the
weapons and identification card to J.W.D.
Thereafter, a weapons hearing was held before the same judge who had presided over the domestic
violence hearing. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court found that return of the guns and card to
J.W.D. would not be in the interest of public health, safety or welfare and, further, that J.W.D. posed a
threat to his wife. The trial court, therefore, ordered forfeiture of the guns and identification card.
The Appellate Division agreed that the Domestic Violence Act authorized seizure of the guns and
identification card even after the dismissal of the domestic violence complaint. However, it took a different
view of the facts and concluded that J.W.D. did not pose a risk to public safety or to his ex-wife.
Accordingly, the court ordered the return of the guns and the card.
The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for certification.
HELD: The legislature intended that courts not return guns to a defendant in a domestic violence action,
even after the dismissal of the complaint, if the court finds that the defendant poses a threat to public health,
safety, or welfare.
1. Although the broad purpose of the Domestic Violence Act is to protect victims, the Act does not
expressly permit the court to authorize the prosecutor to retain a defendant's weapons on dismissal of a
domestic violence complaint and specifically mandates the return of the weapons if the court determines that
the domestic violence situation no longer exists. (pp. 7-9)
2. When a statute's plain language would lead to a result contrary to the intent of the Legislature, courts
are not confined to a literal reading of that language. (p. 9)
3. Every effort should be made to harmonize laws relating to the same subject matter. (pp. 9-10)
4. Ordinarily, an appellate court should accept a trial court's findings of fact that are supported by
substantial credible evidence and should not disturb those findings unless to do so would work an injustice.
(p. 11)
5. Because the lower courts reached conflicting conclusions by emphasizing different facts, under the
circumstances, the better approach is to remand the matter to the trial court to reconsider whether J.W.D.
poses a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. (pp. 11-13)
Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the
matter is REMANDED to the Family Part.
JUSTICES HANDLER, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN join in JUSTICE
POLLOCK's opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ did not participate.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A-
84 September Term 1996
IN THE MATTER OF RETURN
OF WEAPONS TO J.W.D.
Argued January 7, 1997 -- Decided May 6, 1997
On certification to the Superior Court,
Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported
at
290 N.J. Super. 451 (1996).
James C. Lankford, Assistant Prosecutor,
argued the cause for appellant State of New
Jersey (Sharon B. Ransavage, Hunterdon County
Prosecutor, attorney).
Gary J. Needleman argued the cause for
respondent J.W.D. (Needleman and Schocket,
attorneys; Irene A. Cirolla, on the brief).
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
POLLOCK, J.
The dispositive legal issue is whether a defendant in an action under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -33 ("Domestic Violence Act" or the "Act"), is entitled to the return of firearms if the trial court, after dismissing the domestic violence complaint, concludes that the defendant poses a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. The Chancery Division, Family Part, held that defendant posed such a threat, notwithstanding its prior dismissal of the
domestic violence complaint. Consequently, the court ordered the
disposition of defendant's guns under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(3) and
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c, the statute pertaining to the licensing of
firearms. The Appellate Division agreed that the Family Part had
the authority to retain and dispose of the weapons, but disagreed
with the trial court's finding that defendant posed a threat to
the public.
290 N.J. Super 451 (1996). It directed the
Hunterdon County Prosecutor to return defendant's guns to him.
We granted the State's petition for certification.
146 N.J. 496
(1996). We affirm the holding that the Family Part has the
authority to retain and dispose of weapons even after the
dismissal of a domestic violence complaint. We remand the matter
to the Family Part for further factual findings on the issue of
the return to defendant of his weapons.
S.D. and defendant, J.W.D., are now divorced. Before their divorce, S.D filed two domestic violence complaints against defendant in two years. On June 2, 1992, when S.D. filed the first domestic violence complaint, the police confiscated defendant's guns and firearms purchaser's identification card. S.D. agreed to dismiss the complaint, separate from defendant, and attend counseling with him.
On dismissal of the complaint, defendant wrote to the Hunterdon County Prosecutor's office for the return of the guns
and the card. In his letter, defendant, who has a Ph.D. in
chemistry, explained:
It would be a trivial matter for me to
enter any hardware store and leave with
enough common materials to fabricate a highly
effective firearm and ammunition to use in
it. The so called weapons which you have
confiscated from me are sporting instruments
which amuse me and have great emotional
attachment as a result of many happy hours of
recreation.
The Hunterdon County Prosecutor's Office returned defendant's
weapons and firearms identification card.
S.D.'s and J.W.D.'s attempts at reconciliation failed, and
on August 27, 1992, S.D. filed for divorce. While the divorce
action was pending, she filed the second domestic violence
complaint. The complaint arose out of a confrontation on
December 26, 1994, when S.D. went to defendant's house to pick up
their son, who was visiting defendant. On filing the complaint,
S.D. obtained a temporary restraining order that again required
confiscation of defendant's weapons and firearms purchaser
identification card. Accordingly, the police confiscated
defendant's Browning Challenger .22 caliber semi-automatic long
rifle, Star .380 caliber semi-automatic, Remington 700 30-06
caliber bolt action rifle, Remington 870 twelve gauge pump action
shotgun, and identification card. Defendant filed a cross-complaint in the domestic violence action.
In a hearing before the Family Part, the following facts
emerged. When S.D. went to pick up her son, he was not wearing a
new coat that he had worn when he went to defendant's house.
S.D. told defendant that she wanted the coat. J.W.D. tried to
close the door. S.D. put her foot between the storm door and the
house door. She claimed that defendant then tried to push her
off the porch.
At the hearing, S.D. presented photographs showing bruises
that she sustained as the result of the altercation. Defendant
claimed that S.D. had scratched him. S.D. claimed that she
scratched J.W.D. while trying to hold onto him after he pushed
her so she would not lose her balance. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the Family Part dismissed the complaints and dissolved
the temporary restraining order.
Defendant then sent a second letter to the Hunterdon County
Prosecutor's Office requesting the return of his weapons. In it,
he stated that "[t]his law like so many others is being used by
women to punish men." Defendant enclosed a copy of the letter he
had written to the prosecutor's office when his weapons had been
seized as a result of the earlier domestic violence complaint.
After conducting an investigation, which included
interviewing S.D., the prosecutor filed an objection to the
return of the weapons and identification card to defendant.
The weapons hearing proceeded on May 25, 1995, before the same judge who had presided over the domestic violence hearing. S.D. testified about the events of December 26, 1994. She also recounted an incident that had occurred on September 15, 1992,
when, shortly after the couple separated, she returned to the
marital home to retrieve her belongings. According to S.D.,
defendant had affixed Post-it notes to the windows stating
"Danger, enter at your own risk." Rather than open the door,
S.D. peered into the kitchen window, where she saw a device that
looked like a spring gun covered with a towel and a cord that
seemed to be connected to the door. S.D. believed she would be
injured by the contraption if she were to use the door. On
looking into the garage, she saw a device under a blanket that
looked like a rifle rigged to fire if she entered. S.D. left the
premises. She returned later, entered the home through a window,
and discovered that the "gun" was a drill under a towel and the
"rifle" was a broom attached to a string. The Post-it notes were
gone.
S.D. also recounted that in the course of their marriage,
defendant would play country-western music, strap on a holster,
and walk around the house drawing his gun. She did not know if
the gun was loaded during these incidents.
Defendant testified that S.D.'s account of the booby-trapped
doors was a "total fabrication" and denied placing the Post-it
notes on the windows. Concerning the allegation that he had
rigged a drill to look like a gun, he explained, "[i]f there was
a tool there, there could have been a towel over it or something,
but certainly nothing like -- that she described, that's
unbelievable." As to the garage, he testified, "our garage is
pretty messy. . . there could have been a broomstick laying out
there, I don't know."
A court-ordered custody evaluation report, which was
admitted into evidence, indicated that defendant:
[M]ay respond to rebuffs to his self esteem
with a wide range of unpredictable behaviors
including explosive anger, depression,
anxiety and withdrawal. Although he is
likely to regain his typical posture of
equanimity, he may employ extreme forms of
impulsive coping behaviors which may include
irresponsible acting out.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found:
I am satisfied from testimony that this
is a volatile situation. . . . I do accept
[the wife's] version of events.
I am satisfied from all the evidence
that the issuance or continued possession of
the firearms purchaser or identification card
by [the husband] would not be in the interest
of public health, safety or welfare as that
standard is used in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3. I also
believe that under the circumstances and
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21, [he] does pose
a threat to his wife in these circumstances,
will therefore order forfeiture, or the
revocation of his firearms purchaser's
identification card. I will also direct that
his weapons be forfeited.
The Appellate Division agreed that N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(3),
authorized seizure of the weapons and firearms purchaser
identification card even after the dismissal of the domestic
violence complaint. Taking a different view of the facts,
however, the Appellate Division concluded that defendant did not
pose a risk to public safety or to his ex-wife. Accordingly, the
court ordered the return of defendant's weapons and
identification card.
In the Domestic Violence Act the Legislature made clear its intent to protect victims of actual and potential domestic violence:
It is therefore, the intent of the Legislature to assure the victims of domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse the law can provide.
It is the intent of the Legislature to
stress that the primary duty of a law
enforcement officer when responding to a
domestic violence call is to enforce the laws
allegedly violated and to protect the victim.
Further, it is the responsibility of the
courts to protect the victims of violence
that occurs in a family or family-like
setting by providing access to both emergent
and long-term civil and criminal remedies and
sanctions, and by ordering those remedies and
sanctions that are available to assure the
safety of the victims and the public. To
that end, the Legislature . . . encourages
the broad application of the remedies
available under this act in the civil and
criminal courts.
Consistent with that general legislative intent, the Act
directs that once a domestic violence complaint is filed,
[A] law enforcement officer who has probable
cause to believe that an act of domestic
violence has been committed may:
upon observing or learning that a weapon
is present on the premises, seize any
weapon that the officer reasonably
believes would expose the victim to a
risk of serious bodily injury.
A gap, however, exists in the Act. Although the broad
purpose of the Act is to protect victims, the plain language of
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21(d) does not expressly permit the court to
authorize the prosecutor to retain a defendant's weapons on
dismissal of the domestic violence complaint. To illustrate, the
first paragraph of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-21(d)(3) states:
The prosecutor . . . may, upon notice to the
owner [of the weapons], petition a judge of
the Family Part . . . within 45 days of
seizure, to obtain title to the seized
weapons, or to revoke any and all permits,
licenses and other authorizations for the
use, possession, or ownership of such weapons
pursuant to the law governing such use,
possession or ownership, or may object to the
return of such weapons on such grounds as are
provided for the initial rejection or later
revocation of the authorizations, or on the
grounds that the owner is unfit or that the
owner poses a threat to the public in general
or person or persons in particular.
By comparison, the fourth paragraph of N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21(d)(3)
mandates the return of weapons if any one of the three following
conditions exists:
[I]f the complaint has been dismissed at the
request of the complainant and the prosecutor
determines that there is insufficient
probable cause to indict; or if the defendant
is found not guilty of the charges; or if the
court determines that the domestic violence
situation no longer exists.
A strict reading of the fourth paragraph suggests that absent a determination of the domestic violence action adverse to the defendant, the court must order the return of the defendant's
weapons. Such a reading would lead to the return of the weapons,
even if the court believes the defendant is a threat to the
"public in general or a person in particular."
When, however, a statute's plain language would lead to a
result contrary to the intent of the Legislature, courts are not
confined to a literal reading of that language. State v. State
Troopers Fraternal Ass'n,
134 N.J. 393, 401 (1993). Another part
of the first paragraph of N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21(d)(3), moreover,
implicitly refers to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, the statute regulating the
issuance of firearms purchaser identification cards. In this
regard, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(5) provides:
No handgun purchase permit or firearms
purchaser identification card shall be issued
. . . [t]o any person where the issuance
would not be in the interest of the public
health, safety or welfare.
By reading the two statutes in light of each other, the legislative intent becomes clear. A fundamental tenet of statutory construction is that "every effort should be made to harmonize the law relating to the same subject matter. Statutes in pari materia are to be construed together when helpful in resolving doubts or uncertainties and the ascertainment of legislative intent." State v. Green, 62 N.J. 547, 554-55 (1973). See also Kimmelman v. Henkels & McCoy, Inc., 108 N.J. 123, 129 (1987) (stating "[i]n discerning [legislative] intent we consider not only the particular statute in question, but also the entire legislative scheme of which it is a part."); New Jersey Builders, Owners, & Managers Ass'n v. Blair, 60 N.J. 330, 338 (1972)
(stating, "[i]n reading and interpreting a statute, primary
regard must be given to the fundamental purpose for which the
legislation was enacted.").
When read together, the two statutes reflect the legislative
intent that a court should not return weapons to a defendant who
is a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The
contrary result -- the return of weapons to a defendant who is a
threat to the public -- would be an invitation to a tragedy. We
doubt that the legislature would have intended so disastrous a
result.
As we read the statutes, the legislature intended that a
court should have the power and the responsibility to retain
weapons on determining that the owner of those weapons is a
threat "to public health, safety or welfare." N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c); N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(3). Weapons seized and retained under
these circumstances should be "sold and the proceeds given to the
defendant or the guns can be transferred at defendant's request
to someone who qualifies as a purchaser under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-1 et
seq. and has an appropriate permit or card authorizing the
acquisition." State v. Cunningham,
186 N.J. Super. 502, 513
(App. Div. 1982). We agree with the lower courts that the
legislature intended that courts not return guns to a defendant
in a domestic violence action, even after the dismissal of the
complaint, if the court finds that the defendant poses a threat
to public health, safety, or welfare.
Although the lower courts agreed on the interpretation of the relevant statutes, they disagreed on the ultimate issue whether defendant posed a threat to public safety. Ordinarily, an appellate court should accept a trial court's findings of fact that are supported by substantial credible evidence. Bonnco Petrol, Inc. v. Epstein, 115 N.J. 599, 607 (1989). Deference to a trial court's fact-findings is especially appropriate when the evidence is largely testimonial and involves questions of credibility. Ibid. Thus, an appellate court should not disturb a trial court's fact-findings unless those findings would work an injustice. Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). Consequently, "an appellate court should exercise its original fact finding jurisdiction sparingly and in none but a clear case where there is no doubt about the matter." Id. at 484. If, however, an appellate court is reviewing a trial court's legal conclusions, the same level of deference is not required. Manalapan Realty v. Township Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
In finding that defendant was a threat to public health, safety, or welfare, the trial court stated:
I am satisfied from testimony that this is a volatile situation. It has been a, regrettably, a very, very bitter divorce, it's been ongoing for not only months, but years, I guess, at this juncture. There have been numerous confrontations, not necessarily physical but ongoing, . . . With reference to the specific acts referred to today, I do accept [S.D.'s] version of events. I am satisfied that he did gerryrig out these
weapons, booby traps, or what were supposed
to appear as booby traps. He [was] most
equivocal in his testimony about the stick-it
or Post-it notes. I am satisfied that they
were there with messages, if not identical
but substantially similar to what [S.D.]
described. The behavior of this -- I am
satisfied her version of events with this
record playing and practicing a draw or
whatever did in fact take place. Much of
this behavior borders on frankly, the
bizarre. The psychological evaluation speaks
for itself, although I will note that the one
that is referred to was court ordered. I've
also reviewed the letters that have been
submitted by the State and certainly they're
not dispositive of the issue, but they're
certainly not inconsistent with the
psychological evaluation and are of concern.
In disagreeing, the Appellate Division focused on different
considerations. It stated:
[J.W.D.] is employed as a chemical
engineer and supervisor. He is also a
Commander in the Naval Reserves and served on
active duty in Vietnam. Understandably, the
local police had no objection to the return
of the weapons. He does not have a criminal
record; was never convicted of a crime; is
not presently under indictment; has never
been diagnosed as drug dependent; has never
been hospitalized for a mental or emotional
disorder; has never experienced seizures or
other convulsive disorders; and does not
suffer from any physical ailment as would
prevent his safe handling of weapons. See
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3.
The Appellate Division also noted that defendant had possessed the weapons during the two years between the domestic violence complaints when the "domestic tension and divorce action were at a critical stage." Id. at 462. The court then indicated that the trial court's findings amounted only to an acceptance that
certain activities took place, not that J.W.D. was a threat to
his ex-wife or the general public. Ibid. In addition, the court
pointed out that the psychological report did not "state that
[J.W.D.] would resort to physical violence or use of weapons."
Ibid. With regard to J.W.D.'s letters to the prosecutor's
office, the Appellate Division "perceive[d] [them] to merely
reflect his displeasure and frustration under the circumstances."
Ibid. As a result, the court concluded that "there was
insufficient credible evidence to support the judge's order of
forfeiture." Ibid.
The lower courts reached conflicting conclusions by
emphasizing different facts. Under the circumstances, we believe
that the better approach is to remand the matter to the Family
Part to reconsider whether the defendant poses a threat to public
health, safety, or welfare. The Family Part may take such
additional testimony as it, in its discretion, deems appropriate.
In remanding, we recognize that the witnesses' credibility played
a large part in the Family Part's original findings. We do not
intimate that the Family Part should change its original
decision.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and the matter is remanded to the Family Part.
JUSTICES HANDLER, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN join
in JUSTICE POLLOCK's opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ did not
participate.
NO. A-84 SEPTEMBER TERM 1996
ON APPEAL FROM
ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court
IN THE MATTER OF RETURN
OF WEAPONS TO J.W.D.
DECIDED May 6, 1997
Justice Handler PRESIDING
OPINION BY Justice Pollock
CONCURRING OPINION BY
DISSENTING OPINION BY