NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0906-19T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BRIAN HORNE,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________

Argued March 11, 2020 – Decided April 7, 2020

Before Judges Koblitz, Gooden Brown and Mawla.

On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior 

Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester 

County, Indictment No. 18-04-0303.

Steven J. Salvati, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the 

cause for appellant (Charles A. Fiore, Gloucester 

County Prosecutor, attorney; Steven J. Salvati, on the 

brief).

Frank J. Hoerst, III, argued the cause for intervenor 

Irene Kropp.

Vincent J. Pancari argued the cause for respondent

(Capizola Pancari Lapham and Fralinger, PA, 

attorneys, join in the brief of intervenor Irene Knopp).

The opinion of the court was delivered by 

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

April 7, 2020

APPELLATE DIVISION
2

A-0906-19T1

KOBLITZ, P.J.A.D.

We determine in this case of first impression that the term "child" in the 

spousal privilege exception means an unemancipated child. See N.J.S.A. 

2A:84A-17(2)(b) and N.J.R.E. 501(2)(b). Following an altercation with his 

twenty-seven-year-old stepson, Matthew Farrell, defendant Brian Horne was 

charged with fourth-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(4), and 

second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 

2C:39-4(a)(1). Prior to trial, the State filed a motion to compel the testimony 

of intervenor Irene Kropp, defendant's wife and Farrell's mother. The trial 

court denied the motion, and after granting leave to appeal, we now affirm.

1

 

We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. In the Matter 

of H.D., ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op. at 7). "Our review, however, must 

follow the well-settled rules of statutory construction to 'determine and give 

effect to the Legislature's intent.'" Ibid. (quoting DYFS v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1, 20 

(2013)). "Generally, 'the best indicator of that intent is the plain language 

1

 We also grant the intervenor's motion to exclude the seventy-page 

submission of documents provided by the State to furnish a "background" as 

this evidence was not presented to the trial court and no motion to supplement 

the record was filed. See R. 2:5-4(a); Liberty Surplus Ins. Co. v. Nowell 

Amoroso, P.A., 189 N.J. 436, 452 (2007) ("Our appellate courts will not 

ordinarily consider evidentiary material that is not in the record below.").
3

A-0906-19T1

chosen by the Legislature.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Frye, 217 N.J. 566, 575 

(2014)). "We will not 'rewrite a plainly-written enactment of the Legislature 

[or] presume that the Legislature intended something other than that expressed 

by way of the plain language.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting State in 

Interest of K.O., 217 N.J. 83, 91-92 (2014)).

"[I]f the plain language is ambiguous, [we] will look to extrinsic 

evidence, including 'legislative history and relevant canons of statutory 

construction,' to determine the Legislature's intent." Id. at 7-8 (citation 

omitted) (quoting State v. Shelley, 205 N.J. 320, 325 (2011)). 

The State argues that the trial court erred in finding that the "spousal 

privilege" exception did not apply in this case. The State asserts that the 

"plain language of the statute and rule are clear and unambiguous: the 'spousal 

privilege' does not apply when the accused is charged with offenses against a 

child of the spouse." The State asserts that there is no dispute that Farrell is 

Kropp's son and Kropp is married to defendant, therefore, the spousal privilege 

should not apply in this case. 

The spousal privilege, codified in 1960 and amended in 2006 to include 

"one partner in a civil union couple," provides:

The spouse or one partner in a civil union couple of 

the accused in a criminal action shall not testify in 
4

A-0906-19T1

such action except to prove the fact of marriage or 

civil union unless (a) such spouse or partner consents, 

or (b) the accused is charged with an offense against 

the spouse or partner, a child of the accused or of the 

spouse or partner, or a child to whom the accused or 

the spouse or partner stands in the place of a parent, or 

(c) such spouse or partner is the complainant.

[N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-17(2); N.J.R.E. 501(2) (emphasis 

added).]

Referencing statutes enacted well after 1960, the State asserts that "the 

Legislature declined to define 'child' in the spousal privilege, despite clearly 

recognizing their ability to do so in other statutes." See N.J.S.A. 2C:24-

4(b)(1) (enacted in 1978 and defining "child" as "any person under [eighteen] 

years of age" for the crime of endangering the welfare of a child); N.J.S.A. 

2C:13-6(b) (enacted in 1993 and defining "child" as "a person less than 

[eighteen] years old" for the crime of luring or enticing a child). The 1960 

version of the endangering the welfare of a child statute does not define a 

"child." N.J.S.A. 2A:96-2 (repealed by L. 1978, c. 95, § 2C:98-2, eff. Sept. 1, 

1979). No version of the luring and enticing children statute existed in 1960. 

A criminal statute related to the hiring, employing or use of a child in 

connection with the sale or transport of illegal drugs, in effect from 1952 to 

1986, referred to "any child under the age of eighteen years." N.J.S.A. 2A:96-

5 (repealed by L. 1987, c. 106, § 25, eff. July 9, 1987). The legislative history 
5

A-0906-19T1

is not helpful in determining the meaning of "child" in the spousal privilege 

exception.

Our Supreme Court has stated that "the spousal privilege is intended to 

protect the sanctity and tranquility of marriage from the negative consequences 

which are 'presumed to attend the compelled condemnation of one spouse by 

another in a criminal proceeding.'" State v. Mauti, 208 N.J. 519, 534 (2012)

(quoting State v. Baluch, 341 N.J. Super. 141, 171 (App. Div. 2001)). An 

exception to the privilege is when the accused is charged with an offense 

against "a child of the accused or of the spouse or partner, or a child to whom 

the accused or the spouse or partner stands in the place of a parent." N.J.S.A. 

2A:84A-17(2)(b). The purpose of the exception is to protect children, even at 

the expense of marital harmony, by requiring parents to testify truthfully when 

called by the State in those instances where a dependent child is the victim. 

See United States v. Allery, 526 F.2d 1362, 1366 (8th Cir. 1975) ("[A] serious 

crime against a child is an offense against that family harmony and to society 

as well. . . . [W]e note the necessity for parental testimony in prosecutions for 

child abuse."). 

"A statute's plain language must be construed 'in context with related 

provisions so as to give sense to the legislation as a whole.'" State v. 
6

A-0906-19T1

Rodriguez, 238 N.J. 105, 113 (2019) (quoting Spade v. Select Comfort Corp., 

232 N.J. 504, 515 (2018)). We need not look beyond the plain wording of this 

statute. The meaning of "child" becomes clear from the phrase that follows in 

the same section. The second phrase includes: "a child to whom the accused 

or the spouse or partner stands in the place of a parent." N.J.S.A. 2A:84A17(2)(b). Someone stands in the place of a parent to an unemancipated child, 

not an emancipated adult.

"Parents have a legal duty to support their children from birth until 

emancipation, 'which presumptively occurs when the child reaches the age of 

majority.'" D.W. v. R.W., 212 N.J. 232, 246 (2012) (quoting R.A.C. v. P.J.S., 

Jr., 192 N.J. 81, 94 (2007)). Majority occurs at age eighteen. N.J.S.A. 9:17B3. A child becomes emancipated "when the fundamental dependent 

relationship between parent and child is concluded, the parent relinquishes the 

right to custody and is relieved of the burden of support, and the child is no 

longer entitled to support." Filippone v. Lee, 304 N.J. Super. 301, 308 (App. 

Div. 1997). While there is a rebuttable presumption that the child reaches 

emancipation at age eighteen, the "essential inquiry is whether the child has 

moved 'beyond the sphere of influence and responsibility exercised by a parent 
7

A-0906-19T1

and obtains an independent status of his or her own.'" Ibid. (quoting Bishop v. 

Bishop, 287 N.J. Super. 593, 598 (Ch. Div. 1995)). 

The meaning of child must have the same meaning in both portions of 

the same section of the same statute. We thus hold that "child" in the spousal 

privilege exception, codified in N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-17(2)(b) and set forth in 

N.J.R.E. 501(2)(b), means an unemancipated child.

Affirmed.