By Senator Sharon Grosfeld

As states grapple with trying to find solutions to the problem of domestic violence, they have been aided most recently by a decision from the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Hayes.    (See www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-608.pdf).

On February 24^th, 2009, the highest court in the land reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4^th Circuit, which had found that West Virginia criminal defendant Randy Hayes should not have been prosecuted under the 1996 amendment to the federal Gun Control Act, which bans possession of firearms by individuals who have prior felony or misdemeanor domestic violence convictions.  The reason the 4^th Circuit believed the federal Gun Control Act was unlawfully applied against Mr. Hayes was because Mr. Hayes’ first conviction was for “battery” against his wife, and not for a specifically named “domestic violence” offense.  As such, since domestic violence was not a necessary element that needed to be proved in every instance under the generic battery statute, it was wrong to prosecute Mr. Hayes under the Gun Control Act since that Act, according to the 4^th Circuit, required the commission of an act of domestic violence.

The fact that the victim was the defendant’s wife was not sufficient to overcome the language in the 1996 Act that states the prior conviction must be for a “felony or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” according to the Judges of the 4^th Circuit.  (Emphasis added).  In other words, since Mr. Hayes was found guilty of “battery” against his wife and not “domestic violence” against his wife, although the behavior and the harm done by the defendant was exactly the same whether his crime was labeled a “battery” or “domestic violence,” the 4^th Circuit never-the-less overturned Mr. Hayes’ conviction.   Fortunately the Supreme Court, by a 7 to 2 vote, in a decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with the dissenting votes cast by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justice Antonin Scalia, reversed the 4^th Circuit’s ruling and applied common sense to the meaning of the federal Act.  Nine other federal circuit courts had already reached the same interpretation in prior cases involving the Act as did the Supreme Court in the current case. 

The majority found that most states did not have specific domestic violence crimes as part of their criminal codes, but rather prosecuted spousal assault cases under general battery statutes.  To now hold that the federal Act did not apply to those states that utilized their battery statutes to prosecute domestic violence crimes would reverse all of the progress states have made to finally take domestic violence crimes seriously and use the full force of the law to bring justice to victims.

According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, “approximately 1,200 women a year, three per day, are killed in the United States as a result of domestic violence and approximately 15.5 million children are witnesses to acts of domestic violence every year.   Domestic violence is most often committed against young women between the ages of 16 and 24.  “In just one day in 2007, over 53,000 adults and children were served by domestic violence programs across the country.  On that same day, however, over 7,700 requests for services went unmet because programs lacked the necessary resources to provide services.  This is why the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) must be reauthorized and fully funded to help close the unconscionable gap in services that forces thousands of domestic violence victims and their children to remain in unsafe environments.”  See:  www.nnedv.org/

FVPSA provides the funds for those critical services such as shelter, hotlines and other crisis intervention resources.   In addition, continued full funding is needed for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which provides funding to states in order to assist their efforts in stopping the escalation of domestic violence and hopefully putting an end to this devastating crime once and for all.  See: www.usdoj.gov/