New Supreme Court of New Jersey Decision – Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA)

On April 22, 2024, the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided C.R. v. M.T., 257 N.J. 126 (2024), in which it clarified the showing required to establish “the possibility of future risk to the safety or well-being of the alleged victim” pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2), in order to obtain a final protective order (FPO) under the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA). In this case, the plaintiff, “Clara,” alleged the defendant, “Martin,” sexually assaulted her and sought both a temporary protective order (TPO) and an FPO. The Court held that under SASPA, a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate the possibility of future risk to their safety or well-being for an FPO to be granted, holding that the plain language of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2) creates a standard that is “permissive and easily satisfied.”

Facts and Procedural History of C.R. v. M.T. under the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA)

In June 2018 Clara claimed that she was sexually assaulted by Martin while she was severely intoxicated. Clara applied for a TPO and later a FPO under the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA). The trial court found that Clara’s intoxication prevented her from consenting to sexual contact and there was a possibility of future risk to her safety or well-being because Martin, who had been subjected to legal fees defending against SASPA, may harbor a grudge against her. The trial court issued an FPO directing Martin to have no contact with Clara.

Martin appealed, arguing that Clara had not satisfied N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(1) or (2) because the sexual activity was consensual, he posed no threat to her, and her fear of him was “irrational.” The Appellate Division reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to apply the “prostration of faculties” test to determine whether Clara had been sufficiently intoxicated to be incapable of consenting to sexual activity under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(1).

In its first ruling in this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in C.R. v. M.T., 248 N.J. 428 (2021), reversed and held that “the affirmative consent standard articulated in” State in Interest of M.T.S., 129 N.J. 422 (1992), “is the correct standard to be applied in determining whether sexual activity” was consensual under SASPA, and not the “prostration of faculties” test as applied by the Appellate Division. The affirmative consent standard requires affirmative, freely given permission for sexual activity. The Supreme Court thus remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of whether the sexual activity was consensual or nonconsensual under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(1), utilizing the new standard.

On remand, the trial court found that Clara’s testimony that she continued, more than three years later, to be intensely traumatized by the sexual assault, was credible. On the first factor, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(1), the trial court held that consent to sexual contact “was not affirmatively and freely given,” and on the second factor, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2), found that “the statute only requires a possibility, as opposed to a probability.” The trial court thus ordered the FPO previously issued to remain in effect. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Legal Issue: Final Protective Order (FPO) under Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA)

In its second ruling on the case, in C.R. v. M.T., 257 N.J. 126 (2024), the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision upholding the FPO and addressed the requirements for issuing such an order under SASPA, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-13 to -21.

Court’s Reasoning on the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA) Standard

The Supreme Court held that the text of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2), requiring a court to consider “the possibility of future risk to the safety or well-being of the alleged victim,” created a permissive standard that is easily satisfied. SASPA only requires a plaintiff to show the possibility of future risk to his or her safety or well-being, a low threshold that Clara met by expressing her ongoing trauma, fear, and anxiety over the possibility of future encounters with Martin. The Supreme Court emphasized that testimony from survivors about psychological and emotional harm could suffice to demonstrate the required future risk, making it easier for victims to obtain protective orders under SASPA.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways on the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA)

This decision underscores the Court’s broad interpretation of the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA), making it clear that the standard for issuing a final protective order (FPO) is permissive and easily satisfied. The Court highlighted that survivors of sexual assault do not need to demonstrate immediate danger but only the possibility of future harm to their safety or emotional well-being. This decision strengthens protections for sexual assault survivors under SASPA.

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.