Court Opinion

ID: 9919080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-17 15:07:20.167942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:52.727192
License: Public Domain

RECORD IMPOUNDED

                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0066-22

IN THE MATTER OF D.Z.
_______________________

                  Submitted December 18, 2023 — Decided January 17, 2024

                  Before Judges Marczyk and Chase.

                  On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                  Division, Bergen County, Petition No. 0266 XTR 2022
                  000001.

                  Kalavruzos, Mumola, Hartman, Lento & Duff, LLC,
                  attorneys for appellant D.Z. (William Les Hartman, on
                  the brief).

                  Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for
                  respondent State of New Jersey (K. Charles Deutsch,
                  Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

         D.Z.1 appeals from the trial court's August 9, 2022 final extreme risk

protective order ("FERPO") entered against him. We affirm.

1
   Records relating to FERPO proceedings are confidential and shall not be
disclosed to persons other than the respondent except for good cause shown.
                                          I.

      On May 23, 2022, Washington Township Police received a call from a

concerned parent of a student at Westwood High School. Corporal Michael

Ferrarini responded to the home of the caller. The caller's son, C.P., heard D.Z.,

who was fifteen years old, was going to "shoot up Westwood high school . . .

[and] he doesn't care if he gets suspended, expelled, or goes to jail." C.P. also

told police D.Z. was targeting more than seven other named students at the

school. When Corporal Ferrarini asked C.P. why D.Z. was threatening other

students, he stated there was a naked picture of D.Z. being circulated at school.

      Washington Township Police contacted the Westwood Police Department

because the school has students from both towns. The Westwood dispatcher

obtained information about D.Z. from the high school, and a record check of his

residence showed C.W., a resident of the address and D.Z.'s step-grandfather,2

applied for a handgun permit that year.

      Corporal Ferrarini contacted A.M., a student who was a target of D.Z.

according to C.P. A.M. stated a girl contacted him by Instagram message and

Admin. Off. of the Cts., Admin. Directive #19-19, Guidelines for Extreme Risk
Protective Orders attach. 1, Guideline 8(a) (Aug. 12, 2019) (hereinafter "AOC
Directive").
2
  C.W. is referred to as D.Z.'s step-grandfather and also the boyfriend of D.Z.'s
grandmother in the record. We will refer to him as D.Z's grandfather for clarity.
                                                                            A-0066-22
                                          2
claimed to be D.Z.'s ex-girlfriend. She also contacted two other students who

were friends of A.M. The girl sent a video, purportedly of D.Z. masturbating,

to three students. A.M. thought the video was funny and sent it to more friends

at school.

      A.M. stated the next day students were talking about the video at lunch.

A.M.'s friend, C.S., texted D.Z., and D.Z. responded with his "list" of targets he

wanted to hurt. A.M. further reported D.Z. texted him throughout the rest of the

day about how he was going to hurt him. A.M. showed police screenshots of a

Snapchat message conversation between himself and D.Z. A.M. told D.Z.,

"bringing a weapon to school is pussy shit." D.Z. responded, "oh it is? . . .

[E]ither way [I]'m gonna get suspended or expelled."

      Another student, C.S., gave a statement to Corporal Ferrarini. He stated

D.Z. had texted his friend J., 3 and J. relayed screenshots of the conversation to

C.S. C.S. stated D.Z. "mostly threatened [A.M.,] wanting to hurt him and said

that he has weapons at his house." In the text message exchange, J. asked D.Z.

if he was going to kill anyone and D.Z. responded, "[you're] gonna have to find

out [I guess]," and "[I]'m not fuckin around." When J. confronted D.Z. about a

3
  J. did not give a statement to police. He is identified only by his first initial
because his last name does not appear in the record.

                                                                             A-0066-22
                                        3
possibility that he was going to "bomb the school," D.Z. stated he was not going

to but "it could be worse," and alluded to "cops and violence." When asked if

he owned any weapons, D.Z. stated, "yes," but they were his father's. J. later

asked D.Z. if he owned a gun and if he was going to bring something to school.

D.Z. first responded, "wtf." J. told D.Z. it was a valid question because he was

threatening people's lives, and D.Z. responded, "THEY ARE FUCKIN WITH

MY LIFE [J.]." J. said, "[s]o [you] want to kill them[.] [I]t's not the way," and

D.Z. responded, "hurt them not kill."

      Another concerned parent, C.R., reported concerns to police. C.R. told

police his son showed him screenshots, one of a text message and another of a

Snapchat message. The text message contained the list of students D.Z. was

threatening.   Another screenshot was of D.Z. "having a conversation with

another kid about getting his feelings hurt and possibly hurting someone with a

weapon."

      Corporal Ferrarini and another officer filed for a temporary extreme risk

protective order ("TERPO"), which was granted. Corporal Ferrarini and several

other officers went to D.Z.'s residence to serve the TERPO. The officers spoke

with C.W. outside of the residence and explained his grandson made statements

involving weapons and the school, and the police therefore needed to collect all

                                                                           A-0066-22
                                        4
weapons and ammunition on the property for temporary safekeeping. C.W. let

the police inside. Police told D.Z. they would not take a statement from him at

that time. C.W. showed police the location of the guns in the home. There was

a hunting rifle in a case in the living room closet, and a safe in the upstairs

bedroom contained multiple long guns, shotguns, and two handguns. Police also

collected all ammunition, knives, and a bow and arrows from the bedroom.

Police created an inventory list with the items seized from the home.

      The court conducted a FERPO hearing in August 2022.               Corporal

Ferrarini, D.Z., and C.W. testified.    Corporal Ferrarini testified that after

receiving the call from C.P.'s parent, he requested all the involved students to

come to police headquarters with their parents. He stated the students were

separated and wrote statements at separate times, so no one spoke to each other

about what to write. He testified the students reported D.Z. and another student

had a problem, and D.Z. "was threatening to bring his weapon to school."

Multiple students showed him text messages, which "showed that his

grandfather had weapons."

      Corporal Ferrarini further testified he learned there was a video

circulating, purportedly of D.Z. masturbating. The police did not see the video.

He also testified D.Z. said "he doesn't want to kill anybody, he wants to hurt

                                                                          A-0066-22
                                       5
people . . . ." He stated when A.M. said bringing a weapon to school is "pussy

shit," and D.Z. responded with "[o]h, is it?      Either way, I'm going to get

suspended or expelled[,]" the investigating officers were concerned.

      D.Z. testified he had an online friendship with A.D., whom he never met

in person. On May 20, 2022, D.Z. said he confronted A.D. about her claim she

was a very good student and told her "[y]our mother did your school work for

you, you never did any of your school work, all you do is play games all day[.]"

After this conversation, D.Z. heard from a classmate that A.D. was sending a

nude video of him to other students at the school. He testified the video was not

of him, and he never shared nude images of himself through messaging or social

media.

      D.Z. stated classmates started to ask him about the video; "[ten] to [fifteen

students] came up to [him]" during lunch. He testified the students made fun of

him, he "informed them that it was not [him,]" and he was angered by the

bullying. He said he was so angry he "want[ed] to have a fist fight with [A.M.]

and possibly other people." D.Z. testified he never said he was going to bring a

weapon to school, but he was asked by classmates about it. When asked about

his response to A.M.'s message that "bringing a weapon to school was pussy

shit," D.Z. said his reply was "out of sarcasm." D.Z. claimed if other students

                                                                             A-0066-22
                                        6
did not bring up weapons, he "would have never mentioned weapons at all. . . .

[I]t just escalated to a fight and then [A.M.] brought up weapons." 4

      C.W. testified he lived with D.Z. for approximately six years and dated

D.Z.'s grandmother for many years before that. He said he owned several

firearms, some of which he inherited from his brother, and others he acquired

himself.5 C.W. testified that "at some point [D.Z.] said to one of the kids, 'I

should have punched him at lunch, even if I got suspended.' If he had punched

him at lunch, we wouldn't even be here today." He told the court he had served

in the Marine Corps and there, "when two guys are arguing, they would break

out the boxing gloves and put the two guys together and the argument was

4
  D.Z. testified he did not have access to the firearms in his grandfather's house
and that "[t]hey are locked up in[] a safe." Further, the gun found in the closet
"has two locks on it and the reason why it's in the closet [is] because there is
really no other [place] to store the firearm . . . without it being . . . completely
visible in the house."
5
  C.W. testified the gun found in the living room closet "was in a rifle case [and]
had two locks on it. . . . The only reason why it wasn't stored in the other locker
with the other firearms was because it just wouldn't fit." He testified he only
took the guns out of their locked containers when he went to the shooting range,
and when he did, he would "take them out, come back [home], . . . unload them,
make sure everything was safe, clean them and put them back in the gun safe."
He testified he has never given D.Z. access to the guns. The only time D.Z. had
access to the guns was if he went to the range with C.W. D.Z. had gone to the
range and fired guns with C.W. at least four times.

                                                                              A-0066-22
                                         7
immediately settled and then the boxing gloves came off, they shook hands and

[the] argument [was] over."

     The court ultimately issued a FERPO. The court noted:

           [D.Z.] got frustrated, he got angry and there were
           threats made in the text messages. . . .

                 [D.Z.] lives in a home where there are multiple
           firearms in the home and . . . [C.W.] testified that most
           of these firearms are under lock and key and he's a
           careful gun owner and I don't have any reason to doubt
           that.

                But one . . . of the guns was . . . in a closet, [D.Z.]
           has himself in the past handled firearms; albeit as
           [C.W.] testified[,] safely out on the range . . . .

                  [T]he point is he's had exposure to guns. He's
           fired guns. . . . [T]hese were not idle or empty threats.
           He could have backed them up with a gun.

                 ....

                 [W]hen you have threats in school and you have
           guns . . . that's what I see in this case[,] and I see it very
           clearly and so this FERPO has to be issued.

                 I . . . find factor one, there's a history of threats
           directed toward others. . . . I make the finding that on
           May 23[], 2022[,] the Washington Township Police
           received a call from the parent of [a] student[,] . . . there
           were students filling out statements[,] [and] [t]here
           were parents calling the school.

                 ....

                                                                            A-0066-22
                                         8
                  The threats consisted of [D.Z.] stating that he
            wanted to hurt certain individuals and he had a list of
            targets . . . .

                   [D.Z.] texted another student that his father owns
            weapons and then he made some statement about he
            didn't know what he was going to do; it just depended
            on how aggravated he was.

                  [D.Z.] testified . . . he had no intention of harming
            anybody; [he] doesn't have access to his grandfather's
            firearms and [C.W.] testified that [D.Z.] does not have
            access to any firearms.

                  But there is enough here for me to make the
            findings as to factor one and factor two. . . .

                  ....

                  [U]nder these circumstances, I don't have any
            choice but to issue this FERPO. It is absolutely
            warranted based upon this record.

      On September 23, 2022, the court filed an amplification of its statement

of reasons pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(b).6      The court noted it found Corporal

Ferrarini was a credible witness. It also found C.W. "generally credible, [but]

he appeared to minimize the threats made by [D.Z.] against the other students."

      The court further discussed its conclusion that factors one and two were

implicated under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-23(f). It found factor one applied because D.Z.

6
  The court initially filed a statement of reasons on September 20, 2022, but
amended its statement of reasons to correct a typographical error.
                                                                          A-0066-22
                                        9
"has a history of threats or acts of violence against . . . others based upon the

threats against other classmates . . . reported to police on May 23, 2022."

Further, the court stated:

            [D.Z.]'s actions may have been precipitated by
            bullying, [but] his response to the bullying incident was
            not the correct response and caused fear amongst the
            students. The threat of gun violence in a school is an
            immediate red flag, which cannot be ignored by this
            court. Based upon [D.Z.]'s numerous threats to specific
            students as well as his statements about having access
            to weapons, recounted through police reports and
            screenshots[,] . . . the court found factor one.

      In finding factor two, the history of use, attempted use, or threatened use

of physical force against another person, the court stated it "relied on the same

findings of fact set forth in factor one to find factor two." The court considered

D.Z.'s "threats to bring a gun to school, threats regarding harming a list of

students, and threats of harm directed to specific students." It found "the threat

of gun violence in retaliation to the bullying incident coupled with the fact there

were firearms in the home was of great concern to the court." The court further

found "[e]qually concerning was [C.W.'s] minimization of the incident, and the

clear testimony by [C.W.] that students should settle disputes through violence."

      Based on the court's findings regarding factors one and two, it concluded

the State demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence D.Z. poses a

                                                                             A-0066-22
                                       10
significant danger of bodily injury to himself or others by owning or possessing

a firearm. This appeal followed.

                                        II.

      Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:

            POINT I

            THE STATE FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN TO
            ESTABLISH THAT [D.Z.] POSES A SIGNIFICANT
            DANGER OF BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR
            OTHERS BY HAVING WEAPONS.

            POINT II

            THE COURT BELOW ERRED BY RELYING ON
            HEARSAY THAT WAS UNSUPPORTED BY A
            RESIDUUM OF LEGAL AND COMPETENT
            EVIDENCE.

      More particularly, D.Z. contends the FERPO was premised on a mere

rumor he was going to bring a firearm to school. At no point in his text message

conversations with anyone did D.Z. say he was going to bring a gun to school.

In fact, when confronted about whether he was going to bring something to

school and if he owned a gun, D.Z. responded "wtf," indicating he found the

assertion ridiculous.

      D.Z. argues that because the State only called Corporal Ferrarini to testify,

he was deprived of his ability to cross-examine the other officers as well as the

                                                                             A-0066-22
                                       11
reporting students and their parents. He asserts the credibility of first-hand

witnesses was important to determining whether D.Z. posed a "significant risk

of bodily injury . . . by owning or receiving a firearm." Further, D.Z. maintains

neither the record nor the court's reasons for issuing the FERPO suggest he

posed a significant danger of bodily injury to self or others by ownership,

possession, purchasing, or receipt of firearms. He asserts his response to the

circulation of the video, including making a list of students, was "normal" and

"understandable." Moreover, he denied he wanted to kill these students, only

that he wanted to hurt them. As such, the State did not meet the burden of proof

for the court to issue a FERPO.

      Lastly, D.Z. argues that although the court was permitted to rely on

hearsay, a court's conclusions must be supported by a "residuum of legal and

competent evidence in the record . . . ." Weston v. State, 60 N.J. 36, 51 (1972).

He notes only one investigator was called to testify, and that none of the students

or parents testified, so he did not have an opportunity to question them on the

reasonableness of their fear.

      Our review of the trial court's findings of fact and credibility

determinations is limited. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411 (1998). "We are

generally bound by trial court findings 'when supported by adequate, substantial,

                                                                             A-0066-22
                                       12
credible evidence.'" In re D.L.B., 468 N.J. Super. 397, 416 (App. Div. 2021)

(quoting Cesare, 154 N.J. at 411-12).      "When evidence is testimonial and

involves credibility questions, deference is 'especially appropriate' because the

trial judge is the one who has observed the witnesses first-hand." Ibid. (quoting

Cesare, 154 N.J. at 412). "An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's

findings unless they 'went so wide of the mark that the judge was clearly

mistaken.'" Ibid. (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J.

596, 605 (2007)). However, the trial court must "find the facts" in its decision,

Rule 1:7-4(a), and state "the reasons supporting its decision to grant or deny"

the FERPO, AOC Directive, attach. 1, Guideline 6(a).

The Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018 ("ERPO" or "the statute"),

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-20 to -32, "empowers a court," upon proof by a preponderance

of the evidence, to order the removal of "firearms from a person who 'poses a

significant danger of bodily injury to . . . self or others' by possessing them."

D.L.B., 468 N.J. Super. at 400 (omission in original) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:58-

24(b)).

      The AOC Directive summarizes the statute and promulgates Guidelines

("AOC Guidelines" or "Guideline") "that prescribe the process for obtaining

orders" under the statute. Ibid.

                                                                           A-0066-22
                                      13
      In considering whether to grant a FERPO, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-23(f) requires

the court to consider whether the person against whom the order is sought:

            (1) has any history of threats or acts of violence by the
            [individual] directed toward self or others;

            (2) has any history of use, attempted use, or threatened
            use of physical force by the [individual] against another
            person;

            (3) is the subject of a temporary or final restraining
            order or has violated a temporary or final restraining
            order issued pursuant to the 'Prevention of Domestic
            Violence Act of 1991,' . . . ;

            (4) is the subject of a temporary or final protective order
            or has violated a temporary or final protective order
            issued pursuant to the 'Sexual Assault Survivor
            Protection Act of 2015,' . . . ;

            (5) has any prior arrests, pending charges, or
            convictions for a violent indictable crime or disorderly
            persons offense, stalking offense pursuant to [N.J.S.A.
            2C:12-10], or domestic violence offense enumerated in
            [N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19];

            (6) has any prior arrests, pending charges, or
            convictions for any offense involving cruelty to animals
            or any history of acts involving cruelty to animals;

            (7) has any history of drug or alcohol abuse and
            recovery from this abuse; or

            (8) has recently acquired a firearm, ammunition, or
            other deadly weapon.

                                                                          A-0066-22
                                       14
       Prior to issuing a FERPO, however, the court must also consider "any

other relevant evidence[,]" including if the individual:

             (9) has recklessly used, displayed, or brandished a
             firearm;

             (10) has an existing or previous [ERPO] issued against
             him or her; and

             (11) has previously violated an [ERPO] issued against
             him or her.

             [AOC Directive, attach. 1, Guideline 3(d).] 7

7
    We recently held:

                   Only if a court finds at least one of the eleven
             "behavioral" factors, then it "may consider," . . . four
             additional factors pertaining to a person's mental health
             – whether the [individual]:

             (12) has any prior involuntary commitment in a hospital
             or treatment facility for persons with psychiatric
             disabilities;

             (13) has received or is receiving mental health
             treatment;

             (14) has complied or has failed to comply with any
             mental health treatment; and

             (15) has received a diagnosis of a mental health
             disorder.

                                                                         A-0066-22
                                       15
      No single factor is determinative. Rather, "[t]he court shall issue the

FERPO order if it finds 'by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing that

the [individual] poses a significant danger of bodily injury to the [individual]'s

self or others' by possessing a firearm." Id. at 406-07 (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:58-

24(b)).

      "Importantly, '[t]he rules governing admissibility of evidence at trial shall

not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the [FERPO]

hearing.'" D.L.B., 468 N.J. Super. at 406 (quoting AOC Directive, attach. 1,

Guideline 5(c)). Thus, the court "may consider an affidavit and documents

submitted in support of the petition, and may consider any information provided

by the county prosecutor or designee." AOC Directive, attach. 1, Guideline 5(c).

Presumably, an order cannot be based solely on hearsay; there must be a

residuum of competent evidence in the record to support the issuance of a

FERPO. D.L.B., 468 N.J. Super. at 406.

            [D.L.B., 468 N.J. Super. at 404 (citing AOC Directive,
            attach. 1, Guidelines 3(d), 5(d) (regarding TERPOS and
            FERPOs, respectively)).]

Because no evidence was presented to the court regard D.Z.'s mental health,
these factors were not addressed.

                                                                             A-0066-22
                                       16
      Applying these principles, we affirm the trial court's issuance of a FERPO

against D.Z. substantially for the reasons set forth in the court's well-reasoned

and comprehensive decision. We briefly add the following.

      Initially, we determine the court did not improperly rely on hearsay in the

matter. As noted, judges in FERPO hearings may consider hearsay, provided

the decision is not based solely on hearsay. There must be a residuum of

competent evidence in the record to support the issuance of a FERPO. Ibid.

There is no indication the court based its decision entirely on hearsay. The court

utilized legally competent evidence in conjunction with hearsay to support its

findings. The court not only relied on the testimony of Corporal Ferrarini, it

also considered D.Z.'s own statements in text messages, along with his actual

testimony at the hearing. The court further relied on the testimony of C.W. In

short, there was sufficient testimonial evidence, coupled with the hearsay, to

support the court's decision.

      We further observe the trial court was mindful that D.Z.'s "actions may

have been precipitated by bullying . . . ." Nevertheless, the court properly

analyzed the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-23(f) and determined respondent

posed a significant danger to others. As the court noted, D.Z.'s actions in

response to the circulation of the video caused fear among the students at his

                                                                            A-0066-22
                                       17
high school which was not justified in any manner. The court's findings of fact

and legal conclusions are amply supported by the record, and we discern no basis

to disturb its ruling.

      To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of D.Z.'s remaining

arguments, we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.

                                                                          A-0066-22
                                       18