New New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – Sex Offender Restraining Order

On May 30, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. M.F.L., which upheld the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to modify his judgment of conviction and Sex Offender Restraining Order (SORO). The court held that the defendant failed to provide sufficient information to justify modifying the SORO under the standard set forth in Carfagno v. Carfagno.

Facts and Procedural History of the Case

The case arose after M.F.L. was convicted of two counts of second-degree sexual assault under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b) for offenses committed against his two stepdaughters, who resided with him, his ex-wife A.M., and their two minor biological children. In 2018, M.F.L. was sentenced to seven years in prison, subject to the No Early Release Act. As part of the sentencing, the trial court issued a Sex Offender Restraining Order (SORO) under Nicole’s Law, which prohibited M.F.L. from contacting the victims, his ex-wife, and his biological children.

Legal Issue: Request to Modify the Sex Offender Restraining Order

While still incarcerated, M.F.L. filed a motion in 2021 to modify the Sex Offender Restraining Order (SORO), requesting contact and visitation with his biological children through a third party. He argued that the victims were now adults and no longer lived with his biological children, which constituted a change in circumstances justifying relief. He also contended that Nicole’s Law did not require him to give up his parental rights. The prosecutor opposed the motion, citing the ongoing trauma caused by M.F.L.’s past actions and stating that the biological children did not wish to have contact with him.

Application of Carfagno Factors to the Sex Offender Restraining Order

In denying the motion, the trial court applied the factors established in Carfagno v. Carfagno (288 N.J. Super. 424), a case that outlines considerations for modifying or vacating final restraining orders (FROs) under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA). The Carfagno factors include whether the victim consents to lifting the order, whether the victim fears the defendant, and the nature of the parties’ current relationship. The court found that M.F.L. had not presented sufficient evidence to support modifying the Sex Offender Restraining Order (SORO), and the motion was denied.

Appellate Court’s Affirmation of the Denial to Modify the Sex Offender Restraining Order

On appeal, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. It held that the Carfagno framework was appropriate for analyzing modifications to Sex Offender Restraining Orders (SOROs), which, like FROs, are designed to protect victims from unwanted contact. The appellate court emphasized that the protection of victims remains the overarching purpose of Nicole’s Law. The court also noted that M.F.L. failed to present adequate information for the trial judge to properly assess the Carfagno factors, including the children’s position on contact with their father. Furthermore, hearsay statements were insufficient to carry the defendant’s burden of proof.

Key Takeaways on Modifying a Sex Offender Restraining Order

The Appellate Division ultimately concluded that the trial court had correctly denied the motion to modify the Sex Offender Restraining Order (SORO). The court left open the possibility that M.F.L. could file a new motion after his release from prison, provided that he supplies more concrete evidence and testimony. If contested, such a motion might necessitate an evidentiary hearing.

Conclusion: The Importance of Clear Evidence in Sex Offender Restraining Order Modifications

In summary, the decision underscores that Sex Offender Restraining Orders (SOROs) serve to protect victims and their families, and any modification to such orders requires clear evidence of changed circumstances. The Carfagno factors continue to be a critical tool in evaluating whether to alter restraining orders. The court’s decision reflects the importance of maintaining protections for victims while allowing room for reconsideration when justified by sufficient evidence.

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.