STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KIRILL BULATKIN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-4003-16T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KIRILL BULATKIN,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________

              Submitted February 14, 2018 – Decided March 20, 2018

              Before Judges Alvarez and Currier.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Bergen County, Municipal Appeal
              No. 008-01-17.

              Robert F. Davies, attorney for appellant.

              Dennis Calo, Acting Bergen County Prosecutor,
              attorney for respondent (Michael R. Philips,
              Special   Deputy    Attorney   General/Acting
              Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
              brief).

PER CURIAM

        Defendant Kirill Bulatkin appeals from the Law Division's

order entered after a de novo trial on the record.                        The Law
Division found him guilty of harassment under 
N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a).

We affirm.

      Defendant and his wife Marina Bulatkina separated after eight

years of marriage.       They have one child together.       Defendant filed

for divorce in June 2016. Three weeks later, Marina1 signed a

complaint-summons    alleging     that     defendant   had   sent   her   text

messages containing offensively coarse language that had caused

her annoyance and alarm in violation of 
N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a).

      During the municipal court trial, Marina testified that on

June 20, 2016, she received a series of text messages in Russian

from defendant.     In one of the texts, defendant called Marina a

"Russian whore," in another he accused her of "fucking in motels."

In another exchange, defendant stated that he would call Marina a

"whore" whenever he liked.            Marina stated that defendant had

previously threatened to disclose details of their divorce in a

public forum, which she took as a threat to her modeling career.

She   testified   that    she   was   "terrifie[d]"    and   "scared"     after

receiving these texts.

      Defendant also testified at trial and, although he admitted

to using the described language in the texts, he clarified that



1
   For the ease of the reader, we refer to the parties by their
first names. We mean no disrespect.


                                       2                              A-4003-16T1
the proper translation from Russian to English is "Russian slut"

instead of "Russian whore."2     He stated that he sent these messages

with the intent of stopping Marina from having any further personal

conversations with him.

     The municipal court judge found both parties credible, noting

the similarity of their testimony.           Finding that defendant had

admitted to the use of vulgar language and had done so out of

anger, and with the specific purpose to harass, the judge concluded

that the State had met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable

doubt for harassment under 
N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a).

     Defendant appealed to the Law Division, and Judge Gary N.

Wilcox conducted a trial de novo on the record, and subsequently

issued a written decision on April 7, 2017.          In his comprehensive

decision, Judge Wilcox addressed each of defendant's arguments

proffered to overturn the guilty finding, and concluded that the

municipal   court   did   not   err   in   finding   defendant   guilty    of

harassment.

     In this appeal, defendant reiterates the arguments made to

the Law Division, contending that: 1) the text messages do not

satisfy the elements of the offense of harassment; 2) the municipal


2
   The municipal court judge found that there was no meaningful
difference between the use of "slut" and "whore," and that both
"constitute[] sufficiently offensive and co[a]rse language under
the statute."

                                      3                             A-4003-16T1
court    erroneously      admitted        testimony      concerning   prior        text

messages; 3) defendant's conduct was "domestic contretemps," not

a crime; 4) the State failed to establish the contents of the text

messages because it did not introduce written copies of the

messages; and 5) the trial court erred in not taking judicial

notice of the dismissal of a subsequent temporary restraining

order entered against defendant.                  We are unpersuaded by these

arguments.

       Our scope of review is limited to whether the conclusions of

the Law Division judge "could reasonably have been reached on

sufficient credible evidence present in the record."                       State v.

Johnson, 
42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964).              We do "not undertake to alter

concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made

by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing

of error."      State v. Robertson, 
228 N.J. 138, 148 (2017) (quoting

State v. Locurto, 
157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)).

       Appellate     courts   give    substantial        deference    to   a     trial

judge's findings of fact.          Cesare v. Cesare, 
154 N.J. 394, 411-12

(1998) (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 
65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)).            These findings should only be disturbed

when    there   is   no   doubt    that    they    are   inconsistent      with     the

relevant, credible evidence presented below, such that a manifest

denial of justice would result from their preservation.                        Id. at

                                           4                                   A-4003-16T1
412.    We owe no deference to the trial judge's legal conclusions.

Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 
140 N.J. 366,

378 (1995).

       Judge Wilcox properly conducted a de novo trial by reviewing

the    transcripts   and   considering   the   written   briefs   and   oral

arguments of counsel.      In giving due regard to the municipal court

judge's credibility findings, Judge Wilcox found that defendant

had violated 
N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a).

       We discern no basis to disturb the trial judge's decision.

He thoroughly reviewed the facts and we are satisfied there is

sufficient credible evidence in the record to substantiate his

findings.     We conclude that defendant's arguments are without

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R.

2:11-3(e)(2), and affirm substantially for the thoughtful reasons

expressed by Judge Wilcox.

       Affirmed.




                                    5                               A-4003-16T1