A Compilation of Court Filings and Police Reported Incidents:

Transcription

1 A Compilation of Court Filings and Police Reported Incidents: Idaho Statistical Analysis Center May 2011

2 Domestic Violence in Idaho A Compilation of Court Filings and Police Reported Incidents: Idaho Statistical Analysis Center Janeena Wing Edited by: Misty Kifer and Terry Uda Cost information for this publication is available from the Idaho State Police in accordance with Idaho Code, Section This project was supported by a STOP Violence Against Women Grant No. 10STPISP and Bureau of Justice Statistics Grant No. 10BJSC00. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.

3 Introduction Intimate partner violence includes incidents where the offender and victim are related through marriage/common-law, as an ex -spouse, boy/girlfriend, or as same sex partners. In 2010, there were 5,901 victims of reported intimate partner violence in Idaho. Domestic violence, on the other hand, (as defined by Idaho statute) includes incidents where the offender and victim are married, formerly married, or have a child in common. Crimes reported to the Idaho Incident Based Reporting System (IIBRS) do not indicate whether the victim and offender reside within the same household or have a child in common. In addition, IIBRS does not indicate the actual Idaho statute violation that occurred, but rather provides crime types that have been standardized for crime comparison across the nation. To understand the trend of domestic violence in Idaho, this report provides information from both court case filings and police reports (IIBRS data) from 2005 through Court filings were obtained for all cases of domestic violence assault and battery, attempted strangulation, stalking, domestic violence protection order and no contact order violations between 2005 and The actual victim/ offender relationship was unknown, but these specific charges were focused on as they are more commonly associated with intimate partners. The outcomes of cases filed related to domestic relationships helps understand how criminal cases are handled by the judicial system. Although IIBRS does not track Idaho code violations, it contains the victim/offender relationship, which was used to determine all crimes occurring between intimate partners and family members between 2005 and Intimate partner and family member victims are compared against all victims within this report, to understand the characteristics and trends of family violence in Idaho. Domestic Violence Protection Order and No Contact Order Violations Since 1988, the Domestic Violence Crime Prevention Act (Idaho Code Section ) has offered protection orders to victims of domestic violence. The protection order issued by a court offers protection to both adults and children from physical harm. If immediate and present danger of violence exists, the order can be granted immediately. However, emergency orders are temporary until a full hearing is conducted 1. There are slight differences between a no contact order and a domestic violence protection order. A no contact order is issued by a judge and orders the defendant in a criminal case to have no contact with the victim, most often in cases involving domestic violence or stalking. Violation of both a no contact order and domestic violence protection order is a misdemeanor and the violator may be arrested without a warrant. Between 2005 and 2010 there were 3,271 domestic violence protection order violations filed and 6,430 no contact order violations filed in criminal court. Violation of a protection order and no contact order is punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000. Idaho Domestic Violence Courts Idaho currently has operating domestic violence courts in five judicial districts. Idaho Domestic Violence Courts seek to improve the safety of victims and children and hold more offenders accountable. In FY2011 (July 1,2010 through June 30, 2011), domestic violence courts monitored 1,575 offenders 2, a 73% increase over the prior two years. In addition, domestic violence court coordinators assisted 1,695 victims, representing a 7% increase from 2010 and a 70% increase from In addition to criminal cases filed, there were 4,637 domestic violence civil cases handled by the magistrate court and 9 handled by the district court in Idaho Fourth District Court (2012). Domestic Violence is a Crime. Retrieved from 20Violence.html 2. Idaho Supreme Court (2011). Annual Report. Retrieved from

4 Highlights Court Records: After the initial filing of 21,287 charges for domestic violence assault/battery, 63.5% were adjudicated as domestic violence assault/battery, 24.9% as disturbing the peace, 8.9% as battery (versus domestic violence battery), 0.9% as disorderly conduct, and 0.8% as assault (versus domestic assault). Over half (54.3%) domestic violence assault and battery charges, prosecuted as the original charge, were dismissed and 38.0% were found guilty. Domestic violence assault/battery cases adjudicated as a lesser charge were more likely to result in guilty outcomes. Most (96.6%) no contact order violations and domestic violence protection order violations (93.2%) were prosecuted as such. No contact order violations adjudicated as the original charge were more likely to result in guilty outcomes than domestic violence protection order violations (49.6% compared to 41.4%). Nearly two-thirds (63.6%) of attempted strangulation cases (N=2,271) were prosecuted as attempted strangulation. The majority (70.6%) of attempted strangulation cases adjudicated as such were dismissed. If prosecuted as a domestic violence assault/battery charge, 85.1% of attempted strangulation cases resulted in guilty outcomes. Three quarters (77.3%) of all stalking cases were prosecuted as stalking. Over half (55.9%) of stalking cases adjudicated as stalking were dismissed, and nearly one-third (32.4%) were found guilty. The majority (90.1%) of stalking cases prosecuted as disturbing the peace were found guilty. Police Reports: Between 2005 and 2010, 27.0% of victims of violent crime were in intimate partner relationships (IPV) with the offender, 15.9% were familial related (FV), and other relationship types made up the remaining 57.1%. Victims of IPV were more likely to experience an injury than FV or other victims (56.8% compared to 40.4% and 43.3%). Between 2005 and 2010, 36.4% of all homicides were committed between intimate partners. As noted in officer reports, incidents involving intimate partners were more likely to involve alcohol than incidents involving either family or other relationships (22.9% IPV compared to 10.4% FV and 17.1% Other). In 5.3% of incidents where a child was victimized by a parent, the parent was thought to be under the influence of drugs. Asphyxiation (strangulation) was more common in IPV incidents (0.9%) than in other relationships (0.05%). Use of drugs as a weapon occurred within 0.04% of IPV incidents, but more commonly within FV (0.1%) and other relationship (0.1%) incidents. Of offenders who drugged their victim (N=110 between 2005 and 2010), nearly half (46.4%) were suspected to also be under the influence of drugs, and 18.2% were suspected to be under the influence of alcohol. Family violence follows a unique pattern over the course of the week. IPV is much more common on Sunday than any other day. Family violence, on the other hand, occurs more often on Monday through Thursday. The majority of IPV and FV victims were female (80.6% and 61.8% respectively). However, family member victims were more likely to be male than intimately related victims (38.2% compared to 19.4%). Although individuals suspected to be both victim and offender were slightly more likely to be female (51.6%), females who were considered both victim and offender were less likely to be arrested (45.5%). IPV victims had the greatest tendency to be considered both offender and victim in an incident, composing nearly half (42.4%) of all such situations. 4

5 Idaho Court Records Between 2005 and 2010 there were 21,347 domestic violence assault and battery cases filed in Idaho, an average of 3,558 per year. In addition, there were 6,430 no contact order violations (average of 1,072 per year) and 3,271 domestic violence protection order violations (average of 545 per year). On a smaller scale, there were 2,276 attempted strangulation cases filed (average of 379 per year) and 1,146 stalking charges (average of191 per year). Domestic violence assault and battery, no contact order violations, domestic violence violation of protection order, and stalking cases were lower in 2010 than in Attempted strangulation, however, increased by 12.1% from 2005 to Year Total charges , , , , , ,280 Original Charge Domestic Violence Assault and Battery 21, % No Contact Order Violation 6, % Domestic Violence Protection Order Violation 3, % Attempted Strangulation 2, % Stalking 1, % Total 34, % N % % adjudicated as felony Number of Cases Filed Per Year: ,826 3,666 3, ,429 3,426 3, Domestic Violence Assault and Battery 2500 No Contact Order Violation ,263 1,071 1,033 1,013 1, Domestic Violence Violation of Protection Order Attempted Strangulation Stalking 5

6 Outcome of Case For this research, the court case outcome was categorized as either: 1) acquittal; 2) guilty; 3) dismissed; 4) conditional dismissal/judgment withheld; 5) guilty withheld judgment; or 6) inactivity dismissal. An acquittal certifies the accused is free from the charge as far as criminal law is concerned. Reasons for dismissal cover a wide range and result in the charge being dropped. In cases of withheld judgment, the judge withholds judgment until the defendant fulfills certain obligations. Typically, individuals are only allowed one withheld judgment within their lifetime. The offender is not convicted of the offense but can be placed on probation, asked to provide restitution to the victim, reimburse prosecution costs, perform volunteer service, or sometimes serve a jail term. After successful completion of agreement the offender can apply to have the charge dismissed. Approximately half (51.8%) of all cases studied were given guilty sentences and an additional 3.4% were found guilty after withheld judgment. Less than half (40.4%) of cases were dismissed and 0.8% were acquitted. Depending upon whether the adjudicated charge was a misdemeanor or a felony, there were different outcomes for the case. A higher proportion of felony versus misdemeanor charges were dismissed (52.5% compared to 39.5%). In addition, more guilty findings were determined among misdemeanor charges (54.3%) than felony (39.5%). Felony domestic violence assault/battery charges (49.5%) were more likely to result in guilty outcomes than no contact order violations (43.3%), domestic violence protection order violations (29.0%), attempted strangulation (28.3%), or stalking (38.2%). Felony domestic violence protection order violations and felony attempted strangulation were more likely to result in dismissal. For charges adjudicated as a misdemeanor, attempted strangulation (original charge) had the highest proportion resulting in a guilty verdict (72.5%), followed by domestic violence assault/battery (56.0%) and no contact order violation (52.7%). Half (50.1%) of all misdemeanor domestic violence protection order cases were dismissed, more than any other misdemeanor violation focused on for this report. Severity of adjudicated charge Adjudication Outcome Domestic Violence Assault and Battery No Contact Order Violation Original Charge Domestic Violence Protection Order Violation Attempted Strangulation Stalking Total Felony Guilty 49.5% 43.3% 29.0% 28.3% 38.2% 39.5% Dismissed 44.0% 55.5% 66.5% 66.5% 58.3% 52.5% Guilty/withheld judgment 3.9% 0.8% 2.6% 2.6% 2.0% 3.0% Acquittal 1.6% 0.4% 1.6% 2.1% 0.5% 1.6% Conditional dismissal/withheld judgment 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8% 0.6% Inactivity dismissal 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% Total 2, , ,005 Misdemeanor Guilty 56.0% 52.7% 45.7% 72.5% 46.4% 54.3% Dismissed 36.0% 45.4% 50.1% 20.4% 45.2% 39.3% Guilty/withheld judgment 4.8% 0.3% 1.2% 5.3% 3.6% 3.5% Conditional dismissal/withheld judgment 1.4% 0.2% 0.8% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1% Inactivity dismissal 1.1% 1.1% 1.7% 1.7% 1.1% Acquittal 0.8% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 1.8% 0.7% Total 18,553 5,949 3, ,056 6

7 Overall, 12.4% of all offenses focused on for this report were prosecuted as a felony and 87.6% as a misdemeanor. 25.8% of acquittals were felony and 74.2% were misdemeanor. 9.3% of guilty verdicts/pleas were felony and 90.6% were misdemeanor. 15.9% of dismissals were felonies and 84.1% were misdemeanors. After the initial court filing, some offenses were prosecuted as a different offense. The following provides a breakdown of the most common charges cases were prosecuted as. Domestic Violence Assault and Battery Of the 21,287 domestic violence assault/battery charges, 63.5% were prosecuted as domestic violence assault/battery, 24.9% as disturbing the peace, 8.9% as battery (versus domestic violence battery), 0.9% as disorderly conduct, and 0.8% as assault (versus domestic assault). The table on this page shows the remaining charges and outcomes originating from domestic violence assault and battery cases. Domestic violence assault and battery cases adjudicated as such, were more likely to be dismissed than if adjudicated as a different charge (54.3% compared to 36.8%). Charges prosecuted as disturbing the peace were most likely to result in a guilty outcome (94.2%). % Dismissed by % Prosecutor/ Guilty court Original Charge: Domestic Violence Assault and Battery n % % Acquittal Total 21, % 57.9% 36.8% Adjudicated charge: Domestic violence assault/battery 13, % 1.2% 38.0% 54.3% Disturbing the peace 5, % 94.2% 5.2% Battery 1, % 0.2% 92.2% 7.6% Disorderly conduct % 93.4% 5.6% Assault % 90.8% 9.2% Property - Malicious injury to property % 91.2% 7.0% Attempted strangulation % 18.5% 40.7% Telephone - Remove/obstruct lines or equipment % 76.2% 23.8% Assault - Aggravated % % No contact order violation % 63.6% Injury to child % 55.6% Battery - Aggravated % 42.9% Unlawful entry % 16.7% False imprisonment 5 10 Use of deadly weapon in commission of felony Witness intimidate from testifying % 25.0% 5 Weapon Exhibition or use of deadly weapon 4 10 Trespass 4 10 Officers - Resisting or obstructing officers % 25.0% Driving under the influence % 25.0% Driving reckless 4 10 Kidnapping First degree 3 10 Controlled substance possession % 33.3% Drug Paraphernalia % 66.6% Driving - Inattentive/careless % 33.3% Alcohol beverage consume/purchase by minor % 66.6% Rape Robbery 2 10 Pedestrian - Under the influence of alcohol or drugs 2 10 Drivers license - Failure to purchase/invalid 2 10 Lewd conduct with child under Accessory to felony/harboring a wanted felon 1 10 Kidnapping 2nd degree 1 10 Unlawful assembly 1 10 Telephone - Use of to Terrify/harass false statement 1 10 Assault or battery upon certain personnel 1 10 Controlled substance - Conspiracy to commit offense 1 10 Note: For ease of analysis, guilty/withheld judgment were combined with guilty and conditional dismissal/withheld judgment were combined with dismissed. % Other 4.5% 6.5% 0.6% 1.3% 1.0% 1.8% 40.7% 14.3% 36.4% 16.7% 7

8 No Contact Order Violation Of the 6,422 initial filings for no contact order violations between 2005 and 2010, most (96.6%) were prosecuted as no contact order violation, with fewer prosecuted as disturbing the peace (2.1%), domestic violence violation of protection order (0.4%) or other charge (0.9%). Half (49.6%) of all cases prosecuted as no contact order violations resulted in a guilty outcome. Cases prosecuted as disturbing the peace were more likely to result in a guilty verdict (97.8%). Domestic Violence Protection Order Violation Most (93.2%) domestic violence protection order violation cases were prosecuted as domestic violence protection order violation. A small portion of violations were prosecuted as disturbing the peace (4.7%), no contact order violation (1.3%), contempt of court (0.2%) or other (0.6%). Slightly over half (51.8%) of domestic violence protection order violations (prosecuted as such) were dismissed by the prosecutor/court. Only 0.5% were acquitted of charges. Domestic violence protection order violations more often resulted in a guilty outcome if prosecuted as disturbing the peace (89.7%) or no contact order violation (68.2%). Of note, more no contact order violations resulted in guilty outcomes than domestic violence protection order violations (49.6% compared to 44.4%) and fewer were dismissed (45.7% compared to 49.1%). % Dismissed by Original Charge: No Contact Order Violation N % % Acquittal % Guilty prosecutor/ court Total 6, % 49.6% 45.7% Adjudicated charge: No Contact Order Violation 6, % 0.3% 49.6% 45.7% Disturbing the Peace % 97.8% 2.2% Domestic Violence Protection Order Violation % 71.4% 28.6% Contempt of Court 9 0.1% 77.8% 11.1% Witness Intimidate from testifying 8 0.1% 11.1% 11.1% Stalking 8 0.1% 42.9% 28.6% Aiding in a misdemeanor 4 0.1% 10 Disorderly Conduct 3 10 Telephone - Remove/obstruct lines or equipment % Drivers license - driving without privileges % 33.3% Domestic violence assault/battery 2 10 Property - Malicious injury to property Trespass 2 10 Alcohol Bev - Unlawful transportation/open container Controlled substance possession Burglary 1 10 Officers - resisting or obstructing officers 1 10 Battery 1 10 Failure to appear for misdemeanor citation 1 10 Accident fail stop damage accident/leave scene 1 10 Accident-Fail provide info/provide false info 1 10 Note: For ease of analysis, guilty/withheld judgment were combined with guilty and conditional dismissal/withheld judgment were combined with dismissed. 8 Other 4.4% 4.4% 11.1% 77.8% 28.6% 66.6% % Dismissed Original Charge: Domestic Violence Protection by prosecutor/ Order Violation N % % Acquittal % Guilty court % Other Total 3, % 44.4% 49.1% 6.1% Adjudicated Charge: Domestic Violence Protection Order Violation 3, % 0.5% 41.4% 51.8% 6.4% Disturbing the Peace % 89.7% 9.7% 0.6% No Contact Order Violation % 68.2% 22.7% 9.1% Contempt of Court 5 0.2% 8 2 Disorderly Conduct 4 0.1% 10 Stalking 4 0.1% 10 Officers - resisting or obstructing officers 3 0.1% 10 Trespass 2 0.1% 10 Children - Providing shelter to runaway children 1 10 Aiding in a misdemeanor 1 10 Telephone - Use of to harass or make obscene phone calls 1 10 Property - Malicious injury to property 1 10 Unlawful entry 1 10 Property destroy, take personal prop legal custody 1 10 Alcohol Bev - Unlawful transportation/open container 1 10 Note: For ease of analysis, guilty/withheld judgment were combined with guilty and conditional dismissal/withheld judgment were combined with dismissed.

9 Attempted Strangulation Nearly two-thirds (63.6%) of attempted strangulation cases (N=2,271) were prosecuted as attempted strangulation. One quarter (24.7%), however, were prosecuted as domestic violence assault/ battery, and 6.2% as battery. The majority (82.1%) of attempted strangulation cases were dismissed. If prosecuted as a domestic violence assault/battery charge, 85.1% of attempted strangulation cases resulted in guilty outcomes. Stalking Most of the 1,143 stalking charges were prosecuted as stalking (77.3%). The remaining most common charges included disturbing the peace (13.2%), telephone use of to harass or make obscene phone calls (3.1%), and no contact order violation (2.3%). Over half (55.9%) of all cases prosecuted as stalking were dismissed, and one-third (32.4%) were found guilty. Stalking cases prosecuted as disturbing the peace were most likely to result in guilty outcomes (90.1%). Original Charge: Attempted Strangulation N % % Acquittal % Guilty % Dismissed by prosecutor/ court Other Total 2, % 43.1% 55.3% 12.3% Adjudicated: Attempted Strangulation % 2.1% 15.0% 70.6% Domestic violence assault/battery % 0.4% 85.1% 10.9% Battery % 89.3% 7.9% Disturbing the Peace % 92.0% 8.3% Assault - Aggravated % 77.8% 14.8% Assault % 76.9% 15.4% False imprisonment 4 0.2% % Injury to Child 3 0.1% 10 Telephone - Remove/obstruct lines or equipment 3 0.1% 66.6% Property - Malicious injury to property 3 0.1% 10 Battery - aggravated 3 0.1% 10 No Contact Order Violation 3 0.1% 10 Officers - resisting or obstructing officers 2 0.1% 10 Firearm - unlawful possession by convicted felon 1 10 Controlled substance possession 1 10 Officer flee or attempt to elude a police officer 1 10 Original Charge: Stalking N % % Acquittal % Guilty % Dismissed by prosecutor/ court Total 1, % 44.9% 45.5% Adjudicated: Stalking % 1.9% 32.4% 55.9% Disturbing the Peace % 90.1% 8.6% Telephone - Use of to harass or make obscene phone calls % 85.7% 11.4% No Contact Order Violation % 84.6% 15.4% Trespass 7 0.6% 85.7% 14.3% Domestic Violence Violation of Protection Order 7 0.6% 83.3% 16.7% Disorderly Conduct 6 0.5% 6 2 Unlawful entry 5 0.4% 10 Telephone - Use of to Terrify/harass false statement 4 0.3% 10 Burglary 3 0.3% 66.7% 33.3% Property - Malicious injury to property 2 0.2% 5 5 Trespass of privacy 2 0.2% 10 Officers - resisting or obstructing officers 2 0.2% 10 Assault - Aggravated 2 0.2% 10 Domestic violence assault/battery 1 0.1% 10 Children Enticing of 1 0.1% 10 Accessory to Felony/harboring a wanted felon 1 0.1% 10 Theft - petit 1 0.1% 10 Telephone - Remove/obstruct lines or equipment 1 0.1% 10 Trespass - criminal 1 0.1% 10 Assault 1 0.1% % 3.7% 2.9% 7.4% 7.7% 25.0% Note: For ease of analysis, guilty/withheld judgment were combined with guilty and conditional dismissal/withheld judgment were combined with dismissed. Note: For ease of analysis, guilty/withheld judgment were combined with guilty and conditional dismissal/withheld judgment were combined with dismissed. 33.3% % Other 8.1% 9.8% 1.3% 2.9% 2 9

10 Charges per Offender Between 2005 and 2010, 19,464 different offenders were charged with a domestic violence protection order violation, no contact order violation, attempted strangulation, stalking, and/or domestic violence assault/battery. Criminal history records were not obtained to determine if other types of criminal charges were brought against offenders. However, the following information provides an indication of whether or not offenders charged with a domestic violence related charge commonly are involved in further domestic violence incidents. It should be kept in mind, however, that within the six years studied, offenders could have moved out of state. Of these offenders: 75.3% had only one case (among the five types studied) filed against them. 24.7% had multiple charges, up to 18 separate case filings over the course of six years. Original Charge Mean filings N Std. Deviation Domestic Violence Assault and Battery , No Contact Order Violation 3.4 6, Domestic Violence Protection Order Violation 2.4 3, Attempted Strangulation 2.0 2, Stalking 2.3 1, Total , Offenders charged with no contact order violations had the most filings per offender (mean 3.4). Offenders charged with a domestic violence protection order violation had the second highest average per offender (mean 2.4). Offenders with domestic violence assault/battery charges had the fewest average (mean1.7) court filings per offender. Offenders found guilty of a felony had slightly more filings per offender than those found guilty of a misdemeanor (1.6 compared to 1.4). Offenders charged with a felony and acquitted had fewer average filings against them (mean 1.3) than those found guilty (mean 1.6) or those where the charges were dismissed (mean 1.5). Number of charges filed per offender N % 1 14, % 2 3, Total 19, ,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Total Offenders and Cases Per Year: ,249 5,897 5,819 5,583 5,361 5,514 5,545 5,213 5,280 4,943 4,950 4, Offenders Cases Total offenders total cases 10

11 Age of Offender Offenders charged with stalking (mean age 35.8) tended to be older than offenders with other charges. Offenders of attempted strangulation and no contact order violations were slightly younger. The age of offenders differed by case outcome. Between 2005 and 2010, 47.8% of juvenile cases were dismissed and 43.0% were found guilty. Offenders acquitted of the charge were on average four years older than those found guilty (age 36.1 compared to age 32.6). Offenders whose charges were dismissed averaged age In addition, those adjudicated for a felony were older than those prosecuted for a misdemeanor (34.3 compared to 32.8). For the third table on this page, all the offenses were reclassified using crime category codes from the National Incident Based Repository System (NIBRS). The list includes all Idaho charges according to what the case was prosecuted as. Coded this way, most offenses were prosecuted as aggravated assault, and the average age of offenders was Younger offenders were more often charged with theft from building (mean age 20.0), curfew/loitering/ vagrancy (mean age 22.0), drunkenness (mean age 26.5), drug equipment violations (mean age 27.0), driving under the influence (mean age 28.8), liquor law violations (mean age 29.3), and kidnapping/abduction (mean age 29.2). Older offenders were prosecuted for weapon law violations (mean age 41.6), forcible fondling (mean age 38.0), trespass of property (mean age 36.0), and nonviolent family offenses (mean age 35.2). Original Charge: Mean Age N Domestic Violence Assault and Battery ,247 No Contact Order Violation ,420 Domestic Violence Protection Order Violation ,250 Attempted Strangulation ,270 Stalking ,131 Total ,318 Outcome of Case Mean Age N Std. Deviation Guilty , Dismissed , Guilty/Withheld Judgment , Conditional Dismissal/ Judgment Withheld Acquittal Other , Total , Court cases categorized using NIBRS Mean Age N Aggravated Assault ,153 All other Violations ,541 Disorderly Conduct ,989 Simple Assault ,300 Intimidation ,179 Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Trespass of Real Property Burglary/Breaking and Entering Kidnapping/abduction Family Offenses, Nonviolent Drug/Narcotic Violations Liquor Law Violations Weapon Law Violations Driving Under the Influence Drug Equipment Violations Forcible Rape Robbery Drunkenness Forcible Fondling Theft from Building Curfew/Loitering/Vagrancy Violations Total ,318 11

12 Juvenile Offenders Between 2005 and 2010, a small portion of total cases filed were against juveniles. A higher proportion of stalking and domestic violence protection order violation cases were filed against juveniles than other charges studied. Percentage of Adult versus Juvenile Charges % Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile Stalking Domestic Violence Assault and Battery No Contact Order Violation Attempted Strangulation Domestic Violence Violation of Protection Order Charge Age Stalking Adult Juvenile Total Domestic Violence Assault Adult 3,810 3,638 3,543 3,401 3,401 3,336 and Battery Juvenile Total 3,826 3,666 3,567 3,429 3,426 3,357 No Contact Order Violation Adult 1,251 1,062 1,030 1,002 1, Juvenile Total 1,263 1,071 1,033 1,013 1, Attempted Strangulation Adult Juvenile Total Domestic Violence Protection Adult Order Violation Juvenile Total

13 Magistrate and District Court The following information is taken from Idaho Supreme Court Annual Reports between Domestic violence cases include all civil protection order cases filed and domestic relations include divorce, child custody, and visitation cases. For Magistrate Court, the number of domestic relations cases between 2005 and 2011 increased by 12.3%. On the other hand, the number of domestic violence cases decreased by 13.5%. Therefore, the current trend from 2005 is towards fewer civil protection orders, but more divorce, child custody and visitation cases. A few cases were handled by the District Court as appeals. Over the course of seven years, an average of 6.1 domestic violence cases (civil protection order) and an average of 83.1 domestic relations (divorce, child custody and visitation) cases were handled per year. Domestic Violence and Domestic Relations Cases Filed in Magistrate Court ,185 13,624 13,324 13,425 14,198 14,849 14,807 5,407 4,955 4,689 4,448 4,699 4,637 4, Domestic Violence Domestic Relations Domestic Violence and Domestic Relations Cases Filed in District Court Domestic Violence Domestic Relations 13

14 Police Reports The following information details the number of incidents and arrests handled by police between 2005 and There were 5,880 reported victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) in 2010 and 3,528 victims of reported family violence (FV). Similar to court filings, reported victims of IPV decreased by 7.9% between 2005 and 2010; family victims decreased by 5.3%; and victims involved in other relationships with the offender decreased by 12.5%. Most IPV relationships were between boyfriend/girlfriend, followed by spouse, common-law spouse, ex-spouse and homosexual relationship. Although victims of boyfriend/girlfriend relationship violence were as common as victims of spousal relationship violence in 2005, victims of boyfriend/girlfriend relationship violence have since outpaced all others. In addition, in 2010, the number of victims in incidents with exspouse relationships rose above common-law spouse. 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 Number of Victims of IPV, FV and Other: ,607 13,855 14,330 13,383 12,426 11,343 8,000 6,000 4,000 6,396 6,335 6,274 6,213 6,222 5,880 3,756 3,669 3,787 3,677 3,533 3,528 2, IPV FV Other Number of IPV Victims by Relationship Type: ,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, ,961 3,037 2,896 3,029 2,653 2,787 2,610 2,391 2,345 2,412 2,310 2, Boyfriend/Girlfriend Spouse Common-Law Spouse Ex-Spouse Homosexual Relationship 14

15 Victim/Offender Relationship Between 2005 and 2010, IPV composed 27.0% of all victim/offender relationships, family relationships made up 15.9%, and other relationship types made up the remaining 57.1%. The most common categories for victim/offender relationships included: 1) acquaintance (22.5%); 2) boyfriend/girlfriend (12.6%); 3) stranger (10.7%); and 4) spouse (10.4%). Total Victims % of Relationship Type: Group IPV N % Boyfriend/Girlfriend 17, % Spouse 14, Common-Law Spouse 2, Ex-Spouse 2, Homosexual Relationship % of Total Victims % 12.6% % Victim was Offender % 16.6% 17.7% 5.4% 2.1% 0.6% Of the 37,320 reported victims of IPV between 2005 and 2010, nearly half (46.6%) were in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with the offender. In addition, over one-third (38.4%) of IPV victims were within a spousal relationship with the offender, 7.6% were within a common-law relationship with the offender, and 6.5% of victims were the exspouse of the offender. Less than one percent (0.9%) of total IPV victims were in a same sex relationship with the offender. Of the 21,950 reported victims of family violence between 2005 and 2010, nearly onethird (32.0%) were a child of the offender, 17.4% were a parent of the offender, and 16.6% were a sibling of the offender. Total IPV Victims 37, FV N % Child 7, % Parent 3, Sibling (Brother or Sister) 3, Other Family Member 2, Stepchild 1, In-law Stepparent Child of Boyfriend/Girlfriend Grandchild Stepsibling (Stepbrother or Stepsister) Grandparent Total FV Victims 21, Other Relationship N % Acquaintance 31, % 27.0% % 5.1% % % 22.5% 42.4% % 2.9% % % 24.3% For other relationship types between 2005 and 2010, the most common included acquaintance (39.5%) and stranger (18.7%). Stranger 14, Otherwise Known 12, Relationship Unknown 12, In many instances, the victim was also implicated as an offender within the incident. The last column indicates the proportion of incidents with victims thought to be offenders by victim/offender relationship. IPV victims had the greatest tendency to be listed as both offender and victim, composing 42.4% of all victim was offender relationships, but only 27.0% of total victims. However, the most common victim/offender relationship for an individual listed as both offender and victim was acquaintance. Friend 4, Neighbor 2, Employee Babysittee (the Baby) Employer Total Other Relationship Victims 78, Total Victims 138, % % 10 15

16 Trend in Victim/Offender Relationships Total numbers of IPV victims decreased in 2010 from 2009 by 5.5%. However, in 2010, there were more victims who were an ex-spouse of the offender (419 compared to average). The total number of FV victims also decreased between 2009 and However, increases occurred among parents who were victims (15.3% increase), siblings (11.7% increase), step-parents (9.7% increase), and child of a boy/girlfriend (5.7% increase). On the other hand, the number of victims who were the child of the offender (the most common family relationship category) decreased by 10.3%. In 2010, victims within all other relationship types decreased. Slight increases, however, were seen between 2005 and 2010 in victim/offender relationships of neighbor (5.0%), and acquaintance (1.2%). Relationship Type: % Change IPV Boyfriend/Girlfriend 2,653 2,961 3,037 2,896 3,029 2, % Spouse 2,610 2,391 2,345 2,412 2,310 2, Common-Law Spouse Ex-Spouse Homosexual Relationship FV Total IPV Victims 6,396 6,335 6,274 6,213 6,222 5, % Child 1,274 1,173 1,240 1,145 1,151 1, % Parent Sibling (Brother or Sister) Other Family Member Stepchild In-law Stepparent Child of Boyfriend/Girlfriend Grandchild Stepsibling (Stepbrother or Stepsister) Grandparent Total FV Victims 3,756 3,669 3,787 3,677 3,533 3, % Other Relationship Acquaintance 4,700 5,682 5,919 5,170 4,816 4, % Stranger 2,066 2,850 2,668 2,735 2,430 1, Otherwise Known 2,633 1,885 1,899 2,015 1,945 1, Relationship Unknown 2,808 2,114 2,313 2,004 1,866 1, Friend Neighbor Employee Babysittee (the Baby) Employer Total Other Victims 13,607 13,855 14,330 13,383 12,426 11, % Total Victims 23,759 23,859 24,391 23,273 22,181 20, % Six Year Average 2, , , , , , , , , , ,

17 Type of Crime The majority of offenses in cases where the victim and offender relationship is collected were violent. However, a few offenses also involved non-violent crimes: 6% of IPV offenses, 3.4% of FV offenses, and 3.7% of Other Relationship offenses. The majority (85.2%) of all crimes involved assault (simple or aggravated). IPV victims experienced a disproportionate number of assault offenses compared to FV or victims within other relationships (9 IPV, 81.0% FV, and 84.1% Other). FV victims, on the other hand, experienced a disproportionate number of forcible sex offenses (14.0% compared to 2.6% IPV, and 8.3% Other). Crime type IPV FV Other Total Non-Violent 6.0% 3.4% 3.7% 4.2% Violent 94.0% 96.6% 96.3% 95.8% Total 42,158 21, , ,232 Offense IPV FV Other Total Assault Offenses % 84.1% 85.2% Forcible Sex Offenses Destruction/Damage of Property/Vandalism Robbery Kidnapping/Abduction Non-forcible Sex Offenses Burglary/Breaking and Entering Larceny/Theft Offenses Homicide Offenses Fraud Offenses Total 42,158 21, , ,232 Note: Limited to cases in which victim/offender relationship is collected. 17

18 Homicide Victim/Offender Relationship The proportion of homicides where the victim and offender were intimately related has fluctuated over the years, averaging 6.3 victims per year between 2005 and In 2010, there were 2 more IPV homicides than average, accounting for over one-third (36.4%) of all homicides that year. Homicide Total Victim was Spouse Victim was Boyfriend/Girlfriend Homosexual Relationship Victim was Common-Law Spouse Total IPV % of Total Homicide 8.3% 13.2% 12.9% 31.8% 13.8% 36.4% 16.1% Approximately 2 out of 10 (19.1%) of all homicide victims between 2005 and 2010 were family relatives of the offender. Slightly over half (51.1%) of all FV victims were a child of the offender, accounting for 9.7% of all homicide victims. There were 4 FV homicides in Nearly two-thirds (64.8%) of all homicide victims between 2005 and 2010 were related to the offender in other ways. Four in 10 (39.2%) other relationship homicides were an acquaintance of the offender, accounting for 25.4% of all homicide victims. Circumstances Surrounding the Homicide Within IPV homicides, the most common circumstance was an argument (38.7%). FV homicides (not including other and unknown ) also most often resulted from an argument. 3.2% of IPV homicides were a mercy killing. Homicide Total Victim was Child Victim was Parent Victim was Other Family Member Victim was In-law Victim was Sibling (Brother or Sister) Victim was Child of Boyfriend/Girlfriend Victim was Grandchild Victim was Stepchild Total FV % of Total Homicide 18.8% 17.0% 12.9% 22.7% 34.5% 18.2% 19.1% Homicide Total Victim was Acquaintance Relationship Unknown Victim was Otherwise Known Victim was Stranger Victim was Friend Victim was Employee Victim was Babysittee (the Baby) Victim was Neighbor Total Other Victims % of Total Homicide 72.9% 69.8% 74.2% 45.5% 51.7% 45.5% 64.8% 8.7% of other victim/offender relationship homicides resulted from incidents involving drug dealing. Homicide Circumstances: % IPV % FV % Other % Unknown % Total Argument 38.7% 16.7% 29.0% 18.5% 26.8% Other Circumstances Unknown Circumstances Assault on Law Enforcement Officer(s) Lovers Quarrel Other Felony Involved Gangland Drug Dealing Mercy Killing Total

19 Gender of Victim, Offender and Arrestee Victim A higher proportion of victims were female (59.7%) as opposed to male (40.3%). Victims of reported IPV were most often female (80.6%). A smaller proportion of FV victims were female than IPV victims(61.8%). In comparison, victims related to their offender through other relationship types were most often male (54.0%). For situations where the victim was also implicated in the event as an offender, 51.2% were female and 48.8% were male. Offender % Gender of IPV, FV and Other Victims IPV FV Other Victim was Offender Female Male Total The vast majority of IPV offenders were male (80.5%). A higher proportion of FV offenders were female than IPV offenders or other relationship offenders (30.7% compared to 19.5% and 20.9%). Offenders considered to be both victim and offender were split fairly equally between male versus female (51.6% female/48.4% male). Arrestee The gender of arrestees was similar to the gender of suspected offenders in all categories except for incidents where the victim was both victim and offender. Although individuals thought to be both victim and offender were slightly more likely to be female (51.6%), females who were both victim and offender were less likely to be arrested (45.5%). Gender of IPV, FV and Other Offenders % IPV FV Other Victim was Offender Total Female Male Gender of IPV, FV and Other Arrestees % IPV FV Other Victim was Female Male Offender Total 19

20 Age of Victims, Offenders and Arrestees Victims Age of Victim by Offender/Victim Relationship IPV victims tend to be 4 years older than average victims (31.1 compared to 27.6). Only 5.6% of IPV victims were under age 18. FV victims, on the other hand, are much younger, averaging 4.8 years younger than other victims (22.8 compared to 27.6). Over half (54.1%) of FV victims were under age 18, compared to 31.8% of victims in other relationship types. Offenders % Under to to to to IPV FV Other IPV offenders tend to be older than other offenders (age 32.3 compared to age 25.4). A small portion of IPV offenders (1.5%) were under age 18. FV offenders are also older than other offenders (age 29.8 compared to age 25.4). However, over one-third (37.2%) of FV offenders were under age 18. Less than one-third (30.5%) of offenders involved in crimes with victims of other relationship types were under age 18. Arrestees Individuals who are arrested for IPV were similar in age to suspected offenders (32.7 compared to 32.3). 2.2% of individuals arrested for incidents involving intimate partners were under age 18. FV arrestees were slightly younger than suspected offenders (age 27.5 compared to age 29.8). Both IPV and FV arrestees were slightly older on average than arrestees involved in other crimes (age 26.7). One quarter (25.5%) of FV arrestees were under age 18. Nearly thirty percent (29.2%) of arrestees involved in other relationships with victims were under age % Age of Offender by Victim/Offender Relationship IPV Under to to to to FV Other 20

21 Race/ethnicity of Victim, Offender and Arrestee Victims A higher proportion of IPV victims were white (93.4%) compared to other relationship types (90.8%). The majority (91.2%) of FV victims were also white, and 8.3% of FV victims were Hispanic. In addition, fewer IPV victims were Hispanic (6.1%) than family victims (9.1%) or other relationships (8.9%). Victim Race/Ethnicity Relationship % White % Hispanic % American Indian % Black % Asian/ Pacific Islander % Unknown Total IPV 93.4% 6.1% 1.3% 1.2% 0.5% 3.6% 39,953 FV ,780 Other ,411 Total ,144 Offenders IPV and FV offenders were more commonly white than offenders in other relationship types (93.3% and 93.8% compared to 89.4%). However, there were more individuals of unknown race among other offenders than among IPV or FV offenders (5.8% compared to 2.0% and 3.1%). Ethnicity (Hispanic/non-Hispanic) is not collected for offenders. Arrestee A slightly higher proportion of IPV and FV arrestees were white in comparison to other arrestees (93.3% and 94.5% compared to 91.4%). By ethnicity, IPV arrestees were more likely to be Hispanic than FV arrestees (14.3% compared to 10.6%). FV arrestees were least likely to be Hispanic. However, arrestees were more likely to be Hispanic than victims (13.7% compared to 8.2%). Offender Race* Relationship % White % Black % American Indian % Asian American % Unknown Total IPV 93.3% 2.4% 1.7% 0.6% 2.0% 32,839 FV ,052 Other ,658 Total ,931 *Ethnicity is not collected for offenders Arrestee Race/Ethnicity % % % American % Asian % Unknown Relationship White Hispanic % Black Indian American Total IPV 93.3% 14.3% 2.5% 2.0% 0.6% 1.5% 20,602 FV ,902 Other ,519 Total ,065 21

22 IPV, FV and Other Incidents by Hour, Month and Day of Week By Hour 47.2% of IPV incidents occurred between 8pm and 3am. Peak hours were between 7pm and midnight, accounting for 35.1% of all incidents. 51.1% of FV incidents occurred between 12pm and 7 pm. Peak hours spiked between 3pm and 8pm, accounting for 42.0% of all incidents. 44.0% of victim/offender other relationship incidents occurred between 4pm and 11pm. Peak numbers occurred at 3pm, with another spike occurring at 10pm IPV, FV and Other Relationship Incidents by Hour By Month IPV happens most often during summer months. 28.1% occurred during the months of June through August. One out of 10 incidents occurred in the peak month of July. FV also occurs most often during summer months. 27.0% occurred during the months of June through August. However, a disproportionate number (24.4%) occurred in the winter months of November through January in comparison to other incidents. The highest spike occurred in July with 9.6% of all FV incidents. For other relationship types, 26.5% occurred during the summer months of June through August. A disproportionate number occurred in Spring. The peak month was May, with 10.1% of all incidents % IPV FV Other IPV, FV and Other Relationship Incidents by Month IPV FV Other Axis Title Day of Week 18.0% of all IPV incidents occurred on Sunday. Nearly half, (48.9%) occurred between Friday through Sunday. IPV is significantly less likely to occur Tuesday through Thursday. Incidents for FV peaked during weekdays (versus the weekend), with the highpoint on Monday (15.0%). 58.2% occurred between Monday and Thursday. FV is less likely to occur on Saturday or Sunday. Other relationship incidents peaked on Saturday (17.2%). Nearly half, (47.2%) occurred between Friday through Sunday. 22

23 Location of Incident by Victim/Offender Relationship: The most common location for incidents of IPV was a residence/ Location home (85.0%). However, a higher IPV FV Other proportion of FV incidents occurred within a residence than IPV incidents (89.0% compared to 85.0%). On the other hand, a higher proportion of IPV than FV incidents occurred on a Highway/ road/alley (6.0% compared to 3.8%). Other relationship types occurred most commonly at a residence (44.4%) followed by school/college (12.9%), highway/ road/alley (12.4%), and bar/night club (7.1%). Relationship Victim was unknown offender Total Residence/Home 85.0% 89.0% 44.4% 42.4% 73.7% 59.1% Highway/Road/Alley Bar/Night Club School/College Jail/Prison Parking Lot/Garage Other/Unknown Field/Woods Hotel/Motel/Etc Convenience Store Commercial/Office Building Department/Discount Store Service/Gas Station Restaurant Government/Public Building Grocery/Supermarket Lake/Waterway Drug Store/Doctors Office/ Hospital Specialty store (TV, Fur, Etc.) Bank/Savings and Loan Church/Synagogue/Temple Air/Bus/Train Terminal Construction Site Liquor Store Rental Storage Facility Total 19,196 15,859 54,061 10,718 4, ,460 23