# State v. Froland

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · December 12, 2007 · 193 N.J. 186

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9699637

## Case

- **Full name:** State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Stacey Froland A/K/A Stacey Kindt, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** December 12, 2007
- **Citations:** 193 N.J. 186; 936 A.2d 947; 2007 N.J. LEXIS 1437
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Rivera-Soto
- **Judges:** Rabner, Long, Lavecchia, Wallace, Hoens, Rivera-Soto
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9699637

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that interpretation of a statute is restricted by the rule of lenity
- discussing adoption of approach of ALI’s Model Penal Code

## Opinion text

Justice RIVERA-SOTO,
dissenting.
The Appellate Division succinctly noted that “[t]he predominant issue in [this] case is whether a parent with joint custody can be *202 guilty of kidnapping his or her own child.” State v. Froland, 378 N.J.Super. 20, 25 , 874 A.2d 568 (App.Div.2005). In the particularly egregious facts presented in this case — where one parent absconds with the children with the obvious intent to permanently deprive the other parent of any contact with the children, leaving behind no clue as to their whereabouts or well-being — the panel concluded that “the kidnapping statute applies to such a parent.” Ibid.
For the plain, common sense and rational reasons so aptly set forth in the Appellate Division’s opinion, the kidnapping statute, N.J.S.A 2C:13 — 1, certainly applies to those instances where a parent, even one with joint custody, secretly steals the children with the purpose and effect of taking them without the other custodial parent’s consent. Because those self-evident reasons are rejected by the majority, and based on them, I respectfully dissent.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice RABNER, and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, WALLACE, AND HOENS — 5.
For affirmance — Justice RIVERA-SOTO — 1.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9699637. Public record. Not legal advice.