## Facts

- S.D. and M.J.R., Moroccan citizens and Muslims, entered an arranged marriage in Morocco on July 31, 2008, and moved to New Jersey on August 29, 2008.
- S.D. was 17 years old at the time of the marriage and was dependent on M.J.R. after relocation.
- S.D. alleged that soon after arriving in New Jersey, M.J.R. engaged in escalating physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.
- S.D. testified that on November 1, 2008, M.J.R. struck her, pushed her, and pulled her hair, leaving bruises, and that additional assaults occurred over the following weeks.
- S.D. also alleged repeated nonconsensual sexual intercourse during the marriage.
- Police became involved after a bystander reported S.D.’s condition; S.D. received medical attention and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO). That initial action was later dismissed for lack of prosecution, and S.D. later filed a new domestic violence complaint resulting in another TRO.
- At the Family Part bench trial, an Imam testified about Islamic teachings, including that a wife must comply with sexual demands, while acknowledging that New Jersey law treats coerced marital sex as rape.
- The trial judge found predicate acts of domestic violence (assault and harassment) but declined to find sexual assault or criminal sexual contact, reasoning that M.J.R. believed his religion permitted his conduct.
- Despite finding assault and harassment, the trial judge denied a final restraining order (FRO), characterizing the events as a “bad patch” and relying in part on the assumed existence of a criminal no-contact condition.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant’s claimed religious belief that marital sexual compliance is required can negate the intent element for sexual assault and criminal sexual contact in a domestic violence proceeding.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying an FRO after finding predicate acts of domestic violence, based on minimizing the conduct and relying on unverified alternative protections.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed and remanded with directions to enter an FRO in favor of S.D.
- The court held that M.J.R.’s asserted religious justification did not negate the mental state for sexual assault or criminal sexual contact.
- The court held that the trial judge misapplied the PDVA standard by minimizing proven violence and by treating speculative criminal-case protections as a substitute for a civil FRO.

## Legal Principles

- Religious belief does not provide an exception to, or defense against, conduct that state law defines as sexual offenses or domestic violence, and does not negate intent where the actor purposely engaged in the proscribed conduct.
- Marital status does not remove the requirement of affirmative, voluntary consent to sexual contact; “force” for sexual offenses may be physical or constructive (including psychological or intellectual coercion).
- Under the PDVA, after finding a predicate act of domestic violence, the court must decide whether restraints are necessary to protect the victim from future abuse; the inquiry cannot rest on minimizing the abuse or on unverified, external no-contact conditions.
- In assessing the need for an FRO, courts may consider the history and seriousness of abuse, victim vulnerability and dependence, and the likelihood of future contact between the parties (including contact arising from a child).

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division held that religious beliefs could not excuse or negate intent for sexually abusive conduct and that, once predicate acts of domestic violence were found, the trial court was required to order appropriate restraints when protection was needed; it therefore directed entry of a final restraining order.


S.D. v. M.J.R., 415 N.J. Super. 417, 2 A.3d 412 (App. Div. 2010)