STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RORY MOORE

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1986-05T31986-05T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RORY MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

 

Argued October 31, 2006 - Decided March 8, 2007

Before Judges Axelrad and R. B. Coleman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Appeal No. 83-2005.

Rory Moore, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Simon Louis Rosenbach, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Bruce J. Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Rosenbach, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

On June 16, 2005, defendant, Rory Moore, was found guilty of disorderly conduct, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2(a)(1), in the Municipal Court of Dunellen, for which a suspended thirty-day jail term and a $500 fine were imposed. Following a trial de novo on November 14, 2005, in the Law Division, that court also found defendant guilty and imposed the same sentence and fine, together with mandatory costs and surcharges. The court entered a memorializing order dated November 17, 2005, from which defendant appeals. We affirm.

This matter arises out of a domestic dispute. Defendant obtained an order allowing him access to the marital home he had shared with his ex-wife, Karen Kupratis, in order to resolve an ongoing property dispute. The order permitted defendant to remove, among other items, five ceiling fans. Due to past events between the defendant and his ex-wife, on June 26, 2005, officers from the Old Bridge Township Police were notified and asked to be present to maintain order. After their arrival, Kupratis informed the officers that one of the fans that defendant intended to remove was, in fact, hers. In spite of defendant's order, one of the officers told defendant that he could only remove four fans, leaving the one in dispute, until the issue of ownership of the fifth fan could be resolved.

Defendant left the house, but later returned and began to remove the disputed fan from the kitchen ceiling. Because Kupratis showed Officer Kurt Peins a receipt tending to support her claim, he ordered defendant to stop disassembling the fan. After Peins ordered defendant to stop a second time, defendant turned toward Peins and began shaking the screwdriver in Peins' face and yelling that he had a court order. Peins disarmed the defendant and ordered him to begin work on a different fan. Defendant, however, attempted to pry the screwdriver from the officer's hands. At this point, Officer Peins placed defendant under arrest and charged him with disorderly conduct.

On appeal, the scope of our review is quite limited. "The aim of the review . . . is . . . to determine whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record." State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964). If so, the reviewing court "should not disturb the result, even though it has the feeling it might have reached a different conclusion were it the trial tribunal." Ibid. In reviewing a municipal conviction, we are in a similar position to that of the Law Division, in that we ought to defer to the credibility findings of the trying court. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470 (1999). However, our review is of the findings and conclusion at the trial de novo in the Law Division, not those of the Municipal Court. State v. Brennan, 344 N.J. Super. 136, 146-47 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 171 N.J. 43 (2002).

On appeal, defendant makes numerous arguments regarding alleged errors that he contends require reversal of the Law Division's order of judgment. These arguments are premised on defendant's insistence that he had a court order allowing him to retrieve certain property from Kupratis' home. Indeed, the existence of and terms of that order are not in dispute. It is not contested that plaintiff had a right to be on the premises and to remove certain property pursuant to court order. However, this appeal concerns only defendant's actions toward Officer Peins after Peins, rightly or wrongly, ordered defendant to leave one of the fans for a later time when Kupratis' claim of entitlement, facially supported by a receipt, could be resolved.

In this matter, the Municipal Court Judge specifically made credibility determinations as to Officer Peins and the other testifying witnesses, including Sergeant Paul Mosler, Kupratis and defendant. Defendant has presented no arguments sufficient to undermine these determinations. Defendant's focus upon the existence of the original order authorizing the removal of the fans is misguided and the existence of the order does not excuse or justify defendant's aggressive and threatening response to Officer Peins. Based on our review of the record, there is ample evidence in the record to support the court's ruling that defendant was guilty of disorderly conduct. Locurto, supra, 157 N.J. at 472-74; Johnson, supra, 42 N.J. at 157.

We find defendant's remaining assertions of error - relating to discovery issues, to the admissibility of audiotapes, and to the participation of the Old Bridge Municipal Prosecutor in the proceeding in the Dunellen Municipal Court - lack sufficient merit to warrant written discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). See also R. 7:8-2(b) (specifying that upon completion of the trial in a transferee court, the court of origin shall retain jurisdiction and shall maintain all necessary records as though the matter had been tried in the court of origin); and R. 7:8-7(b) (authorizing the court to direct the Municipal Prosecutor to represent the government).

Affirmed.

 

The offense occurred in Old Bridge but the matter was transferred to the Dunellen Municipal Court for trial, presumably pursuant to R. 7:8-2, which authorizes, in the event of a judge's disqualification or inability for any reason to hear a pending matter, the transfer of a matter to a judge sitting in another municipality within the vicinage.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-1986-05T3

March 8, 2007