Q: I filed a criminal harassment charge can the defendant use any documents that have nothing to do with harassment on me?

A: Maybe a review of the documents or at the very least knowledge of their contents would be necessary to answer your question as it would depend on the information contained in and whether it was relevant to the charge/case. I suggest an in person consultation with a lawyer. Although most of us offer free in office consultations this does not include review of documents or answers to specific questions about your case but merely an over view of how a lawyer can help you and what the costs would be so be prepared to get charged for the consultation but at least you will get the answers you desire.

A: Under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4, a person commits the offense of harassment if, "with purpose to harass" he:

a. Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;

b. Subjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or

c. Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person.

The NJ Supreme Court J.D. v. M.D.F. ___ NJ ___ (A-115-09; 065499) decided July 28, 2011 examined the harassment statute and held

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4 a. requires proof of a single communication that was made anonymously, at an extremely inconvenient hour, or in a coarse or offensive language, for the purpose to harass and in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm. Subsection c. requires proof of a course of alarming conduct or repeatedly committed acts with the purpose of alarming or seriously annoying the victim. Distinguishing between acts that constitute harassment for purposes of domestic violence and those that are ordinary domestic contretemps can be difficult. Such a determination may depend on the second inquiry required for complaints under the Act.

….

Not all offensive or bothersome behavior constitutes harassment. Here, the trial court did not identify which subsection of the harassment statute it was applying. The evidence is not sufficient to support a finding under subsection a. because merely being outside of the home in the morning hours is not harassment and J.D. was unaware he was outside until R.T. alerted her, after which he beat a hasty retreat.

Theft and calling mom senile fool not criminal harassment. E.M.B. v R.F.B. 419 NJ Super. 177 (App. Div. 2011)

Plaintiff's stated reasons for seeking a final restraining order against her 56 year old son were that he had stolen her car keys, cell phone, bankbook, money and some jewelry. In addition, plaintiff testified that defendant had locked her out of the house on one occasion and called her a "senile old bitch." The trial court entered a final restraining order based upon harassment. The court reverse because theft is not one of the enumerated predicate acts under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19 and because the evidence was insufficient to prove the thefts or other acts were committed with the requisite purpose to harass.

Thus, "integral to a finding of harassment under either section is the establishment of the purpose to harass . . . ." Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243, 249 (App. Div. 1995).

As was emphasized in Corrente, it is not sufficient that plaintiff feel alarmed or threatened. Id. at 249. Plaintiff's subjective feelings are not a substitute for the required judicial finding of intent to harass by the defendant.

In a deeply dysfunctional marriage, it is not uncommon for emotions to boil over, and for angry words to be hurdled about, often peppered with profanities. Under similar circumstances, the court have held that a husband's statement that he would bury his wife, uttered after she announced her intention to obtain a divorce, did not constitute harassment. Peranio v. Peranio, 280 N.J. Super. 47, 56 (App. Div. 1995). Even the exchange of vulgarities on numerous occasions and inappropriate expressions of anger, including kicking a garbage can in the presence of the parties' young children, is not harassment. J.N.S. v. D.B.S., 302 N.J. Super. 525, 527 (App. Div. 1997).

Under either section of this statute, a defendant must act with

the purpose to harass. Bresocnik v. Gallegos, 367 N.J. Super. 178, 183 (App. Div. 2004). Subsection (a) targets specific modes of speech, including communications "at extremely inconvenient hours," and requires that the manner of speech be "likely to cause annoyance or alarm[.]"