A Sensible NH Supreme Court Decision on Domestic Violence
The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a slip opinion today reversing a Family Division domestic violence final order of protection. Nathalie Hurley v. Craig Hurley. The case was reversed because the NH Supreme Court found that there was not enough evidence to support the trial court's finding of abuse. But my message is still, Don't Text Angry.
The facts are that the parties had been divorced about 4 years. The Defendant sent a text message to the Plaintiff letting her know that his grandmother had just died and asking her not to tell their child. About fifteen text messages back and forth followed. The messages became "heated." The last message the Defendant sent stated, "Whatever. Wish you would die in a fiery crash."
The trial court found that the threatening text constituted criminal threatening and abuse.
The NH Supreme Court analyzed the facts against the requirements of the statute. RSA 173-B:5, I, requires that the plaintiff must prove "abuse" by a preponderance of the evidence. RSA 173-B:1, I, defines "abuse" as a combination of a commission of one (or more) of certain listed criminal acts and that those acts constitute a "credible present threat to the plaintiff's safety."
The Court also analyzed the elements of the crime "criminal threatening." Under RSA 631:4, I(d), "criminal threatening" has three elements: 1) the defendant must threaten to commit a crime; 2) against the person of another; 3) with the purpose of terrorizing any person. The Court found that there was not enough evidence to support that the Defendant sent the text message to the Plaintiff with the purpose to terrorize her.
The Court's Opinion went further to explain why it did not find enough evidence to prove that the Defendant's purpose was to terrorize. The Plaintiff's testimony only focused on the one message, she admitted that the Defendant did not threaten anything about doing something to her car or setting a fire, nor did she dispute the Defendant's testimony that he had never previously abused her. The Court found that context of the "reprehensible" wish stated in the Defendant's text showed that it was not about a threat to commit a crime or to terrorize her. Instead, it was an expression of "transitory anger."
Even though, under the reported facts, that the Court made a very sensible decision in discerning an angry statement from a credible threat, I still want to stress to people - Don't Send Angry Text Messages! "Texting" has become a way for people to respond without much thought to the ill-formed statements of others. It's any easy method of creating unnecessary misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and retribution.
The facts are that the parties had been divorced about 4 years. The Defendant sent a text message to the Plaintiff letting her know that his grandmother had just died and asking her not to tell their child. About fifteen text messages back and forth followed. The messages became "heated." The last message the Defendant sent stated, "Whatever. Wish you would die in a fiery crash."
The trial court found that the threatening text constituted criminal threatening and abuse.
The NH Supreme Court analyzed the facts against the requirements of the statute. RSA 173-B:5, I, requires that the plaintiff must prove "abuse" by a preponderance of the evidence. RSA 173-B:1, I, defines "abuse" as a combination of a commission of one (or more) of certain listed criminal acts and that those acts constitute a "credible present threat to the plaintiff's safety."
The Court also analyzed the elements of the crime "criminal threatening." Under RSA 631:4, I(d), "criminal threatening" has three elements: 1) the defendant must threaten to commit a crime; 2) against the person of another; 3) with the purpose of terrorizing any person. The Court found that there was not enough evidence to support that the Defendant sent the text message to the Plaintiff with the purpose to terrorize her.
The Court's Opinion went further to explain why it did not find enough evidence to prove that the Defendant's purpose was to terrorize. The Plaintiff's testimony only focused on the one message, she admitted that the Defendant did not threaten anything about doing something to her car or setting a fire, nor did she dispute the Defendant's testimony that he had never previously abused her. The Court found that context of the "reprehensible" wish stated in the Defendant's text showed that it was not about a threat to commit a crime or to terrorize her. Instead, it was an expression of "transitory anger."
Even though, under the reported facts, that the Court made a very sensible decision in discerning an angry statement from a credible threat, I still want to stress to people - Don't Send Angry Text Messages! "Texting" has become a way for people to respond without much thought to the ill-formed statements of others. It's any easy method of creating unnecessary misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and retribution.
Comments
Post a Comment