Law Lessons from Shah v. Karnik, App. Div. (A-3561-07T2; Decided April 29, 2009):

Photo by Ross Mayfield

Under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a), a “person commits a petty disorderly persons offense if, with purpose to harass another, he . . . [m]akes, 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.” N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a).

“A violation of subsection (a) requires the following elements: (1) defendant made or caused to be made a communication; (2) defendant’s purpose in making or causing the communication to be made was to harass another person; and (3) the communication was in one of the specified manners or any other manner similarly likely to cause annoyance or alarm to its intended recipient.” State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 576 (1997).

A purpose to harass may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. See State v. Castagna, 387 N.J. Super. 598, 606 (App. Div. 2006) (citing State v. Siegler, 12 N.J. 520, 524 (1953)) (noting “there is rarely direct proof of intent, and purpose [to harass] may and often must be inferred from what is said and done and the surrounding circumstances”).

When an e-mail was sent from an e-mail address assigned to defendant and the subject matter related to the parties’ relationship, the court is permitted to accept this evidence as circumstantial evidence that defendant was in fact the person who authored and transmitted the messages.

[See related Blog Post, published in the New Jersey Family Law blog.]

 Print This Post