Measure Seeks to Ban Gay Panic Defense in NJ Courts
It is "not an affirmative legal defense" but "a tactic to strengthen the defense by playing on prejudice," state lawmakers were told in recent testimony.
November 26, 2019 at 06:36 PM
5 minute read
A bill that would prohibit the use of the so-called gay panic defense in criminal cases, where a defendant claims provocation by sudden knowledge of the victim's sexual orientation or gender, is working its way through the New Jersey Legislature.
The measure was passed unanimously by the state Assembly Monday and now moves to the Senate for consideration.
If it becomes law, New Jersey would join seven other states now banning the defense in criminal cases, according to sponsors. There are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New York and Rhode Island.
Tom Prol, the first openly gay president of the New Jersey State Bar Association and a founding and current executive board member of Asbury Park-based LGBTQ rights organization Garden State Equality, said the bill was long overdue in prohibiting a common legal strategy in criminal cases that amounts to discrimination.
"New Jersey is on its way to joining the other states … that have banned the gay and trans 'panic' defense because it legitimizes and excuses violent criminal acts against our community," said Prol, a partner at Sills Cummis & Gross in Newark, in a recent interview.
"No New Jersey jury should hear that an LGBTQ person 'had it coming' simply because of who they are. I am grateful that the state Assembly unanimously agreed that we must end the discriminatory legal strategy that allows murderers of LGBTQ people to use bigotry as a defense and blame their victim," Prol said.
A-1796, sponsored by Assemblymen John McKeon, D-Essex, and Joann Downey, D-Monmouth, passed by a 73-0 vote in the lower chamber on Monday. It was heard before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18.
It is intended to prevent a defendant "from seeking the reduction of a murder charge to manslaughter committed in the heat of passion when allegedly provoked by the discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the homicide victim's actual or perceived gender identity or expression, or affectional or sexual orientation," as stated in the bill.
An identical Senate version, S-2609, was introduced in that chamber on May 3, 2018, and is awaiting a committee hearing. It is sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lagana, D-Bergen, and Vin Gopal, D-Monmouth, with Troy Singleton, D-Burlington, as a co-sponsor.
Prol, who is also a member of the American Bar Association's governing body, was the sole person to testify in support of the legislation before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18. No group or person testified against the bill.
"The defense is defined by the American Bar Association LGBT Bar as 'a legal strategy which asks a jury to find that a victim's sexual orientation or gender identity is to blame for the defendant's violent reaction, including murder,'" Prol told lawmakers at the hearing. "It must be noted that gay and trans panic is not an affirmative legal defense; it is a tactic to strengthen the defense by playing on prejudice. … This legally sanctioned discrimination against one's sexual orientation and gender identity must cease."
Under current law, a homicide that would otherwise qualify as murder is reduced to manslaughter if the jury finds that the homicide was committed "in the heat of passion" resulting from a reasonable provocation.
A provoked heat-of-passion manslaughter is a crime of the second degree punishable by five to 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of up to $150,000, or both, while murder is a crime of the first degree, punishable by a term of imprisonment for a period ranging from 30 years to life, depending on the circumstances of the act, a fine of up to $200,000, or both.
Sponsors of the New Jersey bill say the legislation was conceived in part by one of the more well-known cases invoking the trans panic defense in New York, in the trial resulting from the death of Islan Nettles. Nettles was beaten to death in Harlem in 2013 after James Dixon discovered she was a transgender woman. At the 2016 trial, Dixon attempted to justify his violence by arguing Nettles provoked him, according to reports. Dixon, originally of Brooklyn and now 29, was convicted and is serving 12 years in jail.
"The 'gay panic or trans panic' defense is not a freestanding defense to criminal liability, but rather a legal tactic. It's used to diminish the reason for a defendant's violent reaction that asks a jury to find a victim's sexual orientation or gender/expression as the cause," said McKeon, a practicing attorney in addition to serving as a legislator, in a statement. "Whether the person was gay, transgender or heterosexual, sexual orientation should not have any bearing on determining a person's guilt in a murder trial. It is prejudiced against the LGBTQ community."
Added Downey: "This bill is a major step forward in addressing discrimination in our court system, and showing New Jersey's LGBTQ community that we stand with them in solidarity against any type of discrimination and hatred. The so-called 'gay panic defense' or 'trans panic defense' has never been more than a transparent attempt to allow the assault or murder of LGBTQ individuals to happen with impunity, and it is long past time that we ended this dark chapter in American legal history."
The New Jersey bill would take effect immediately after being signed by Gov. Phil Murphy into law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetiring AOC Director Judge Glenn A. Grant Walks Away From Judiciary 'Tremendously Impressed' by New Jersey's Judges
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Which Legal Tech Jobs Are on the Rise, and Which Aren't, with Jared Coseglia
- 2Absent Explicit Agreement, Court Rejects Unilateral Responsiveness Redaction of Text Messages
- 3SEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration
- 4Sidley Hires Paul Hastings Energy Finance Partner in Houston
- 5Potential Pitfalls in Arbitrating Religious Disputes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250