U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

October 2009, NCJ 228193

Highlights

SPECIAL REPORT

State Court Processing Statistics

Profile of Intimate Partner Violence Cases 

in Large Urban Counties

Erica L. Smith and Donald J. Farole, Jr., Ph.D.

BJS Statisticians

 n the state courts of 16 large urban counties,

3,750 cases of intimate partner violence

(IPV) were filed in May 2002. These cases

represent 83% of the 4,562 domestic violence

cases filed in the 16 counties.1 A case was

defined as intimate partner violence if it involved

an allegation of intentional physical violence

committed, attempted, or threatened between

spouses, ex-spouses, common-law spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends, present or past. For more

information on the definitions of domestic violence and intimate partner violence used in this

report, see the Methodology. 

More than half of IPV defendants were convicted, and of those convicted, more than 80%

were sentenced to incarceration in either prison

or jail. This report examines the case characteristics that are associated with an increased likelihood of conviction.

1

See appendix table 1 for distribution of victim-offender relationships for all 4,562 domestic violence cases in the study.

This report is based on data collected in the

study Processing of Domestic Violence Cases in

State Courts, conducted by the Bureau of Justice

Statistics (BJS). Findings are based on information documented in prosecutor files and court

records of 3,750 intimate partner violence cases.

Cases were tracked for one year following the

defendant’s first court appearance in May 2002.

Most cases of intimate partner violence 

involved a female victim and a male 

defendant

Victims in intimate partner violence cases were

generally female (86%), while defendants were

generally male (86%) (table 1). The majority of

IPV cases (84%) involved a male defendant and a

female victim. Twelve percent of cases involved a

female defendant and a male victim (not shown

in table). In 4% of IPV cases, the defendant and

victim were of the same gender.

I

Among 3,750 cases of intimate partner violence filed in the state 

courts of 16 large urban counties in May 2002:

• Most involved a female victim and a male defendant (84%).

• Most involved a charge of assault, either aggravated (12%) or 

simple (78%); an additional 5% were charged with intimidation, including stalking.

• Nearly half (46%) involved a defendant with a prior history of 

abuse toward the same victim.

• Approximately 1 in 4 cases involved the use of a weapon, such 

as a gun, a knife, or other blunt object. 

• Defendants charged with a felony (44%) were twice as likely to 

have used a weapon as defendants charged with a misdemeanor (22%).

• A witness to the incident was present in nearly half of intimate 

partner violence cases; half of those witnesses were children.

• A history of abuse between the victim and defendant, among 

other characteristics, was associated with a higher likelihood 

that the case resulted in a conviction.
2 Profile of Intimate Partner Violence Cases in Large Urban Counties

IPV victims and defendants had similar race and

ethnic profiles. Roughly equal percentages of

victims and defendants were white, black, and

Hispanic. This was comparable to the distribution of race and Hispanic origin across all violent

felony defendants in the 16 counties in 2002.2

Fifty-nine percent of defendants and 58% of victims in IPV cases were between the ages of 18

and 34 at the time of the incident. Intimate partner violence involving victims age 55 or older

accounted for less than 3% of cases. Because

these cases were processed in adult courts, very

few defendants (0.2%) were under age 18.

The majority of IPV defendants were 

charged with a misdemeanor

A misdemeanor was the most serious charge

filed against the majority of defendants in intimate partner violence cases. Most misdemeanor

charges (96%) were for simple assault (table 2).

Intimidation made up most of the remaining

misdemeanor IPV charges.

Aggravated assault made up two-thirds (66%) of

felony IPV charges. About 9% of felony IPV

charges were for rape or sexual assault and about

1% were for murder. Together, 9 in 10 defendants

in intimate partner violence cases were charged

with either simple (78%) or aggravated (12%)

assault.

Most intimate partner violence incidents 

occurred in the victim’s residence

Prosecutor files indicated that 58% of IPV incidents occurred in a residence shared by the victim and defendant (table 3). Another 21% of IPV

incidents occurred in a residence occupied by

the victim, but not by the defendant. A greater

percentage of misdemeanor (60%) than felony

cases (49%) arose from incidents that occurred

in a shared residence. Less than 2% of felony or

misdemeanor cases occurred in the workplace.

2

See Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2002, 

February 2006, NCJ 210818, available at http://

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fdluc02.htm. (Last accessed 

September 24, 2009.)

Table 1. 

Demographic characteristics of intimate partner violence victims and 

defendants in 16 large counties, May 2002

Percent of intimate partner violence—

Demographic characteristic Victims Defendants

Total 100% 100%

Gender

Male 14.0% 86.3%

Female 86.0 13.7

Race/Hispanic origin

White non-Hispanic 37.1% 33.6%

Black non-Hispanic 26.4 33.5

Hispanic 33.6 30.8

Other non-Hispanic 2.8 2.0

Age at offense

17 or younger 2.7% 0.2%

18-24 26.1 24.2

25-34 34.9 34.8

35-54 34.0 38.2

55 or older 2.3 2.6

Note: Among the 3,750 cases of intimate partner violence, data on a defendant’s gender were reported 

for 99.4%; race/Hispanic origin for 85.6%; age for 99.2%. Data on a victim’s gender were reported for 

100% of cases; race/Hispanic origin for 94.5%; age for 94.4%.

Table 2. 

Most serious charges filed against intimate partner violence defendants in 

16 large counties, by charge type, May 2002

Percent of defendants charged with a—

Most serious arrest charge All cases Felony Misdemeanor

Total 100% 100% 100%

Murder 0.2 1.0 --

Rape/sexual assault 1.7 8.5 0.2

Robbery 0.2 1.3 --

Aggravated assault 12.2 66.1 --

Simple assault 77.9 -- 95.6

Intimidationa 4.9 10.1 3.7

Other violent offenseb 2.8 13.0 0.5

Total cases 3,750 693 3,057

Note: Aggravated assault is defined as felony assault. Simple assault is defined as misdemeanor assault.

--No cases reported.

a

Includes stalking and harassment. 

b

Includes offenses such as kidnapping and false imprisonment/criminal confinement.
October 2009 3

A third of defendants in intimate partner 

violence cases were using alcohol or drugs

Thirty-three percent (33%) of defendants in IPV

cases were using alcohol or drugs at the time of

the incident. The percentage did not vary by

whether a defendant was charged with a felony

or a misdemeanor (table 4).

The majority of defendants using alcohol or

drugs at the time of the incident were under the

influence of alcohol only. Defendants charged

with a felony (28%) IPV were as likely as defendants charged with a misdemeanor (29%) to

have been under the influence of alcohol. 

Defendants used a weapon in 1 in 4 

intimate partner violence cases

A weapon was used by the defendant in 26% of

IPV cases (table 5). Felony IPV (44%) was more

likely to be characterized by weapon use than

misdemeanor IPV (22%). About 6% of the

defendants charged with a felony used a firearm,

while about 15% used a knife or other sharp

object.

Female defendants (41%) were more likely than

male defendants (24%) to use a weapon during

an incident of intimate partner violence (not

shown in table). Additionally, female defendants

(12%) were twice as likely as male defendants

(5%) to use a knife or sharp object, and three

times more likely (17%) than male defendants

(6%) to use a blunt object such as a pipe or rock

during an IPV incident. 

Prosecutor files indicated that about three-quarters (74%)of IPV defendants did not use a

weapon. These include cases in which defendants may have used hands, fists, or feet as a personal weapon.

Table 3. 

Location of incident in intimate partner violence cases in 16 large 

counties, by charge type, May 2002

Percent of defendants charged with a—

Location of incident All cases Felony Misdemeanor

Total 100% 100% 100%

Residential 85.0 83.8 85.3

Residence shared by victim and defendant 58.1 48.9 60.2

Victim's residence 21.1 25.3 20.2

Defendant's residence 4.2 7.5 3.4

Other residencea 1.6 1.9 1.6

Victim or defendant's workplace 1.2 1.6 1.1

Private or public vehicle 7.0 8.8 6.6

Public place 5.9 4.5 6.2

Other locationb 1.0 1.2 0.9

Total casesc 3,717 683 3,034 

a

Includes incidents that occurred at the home of a relative or a friend.

bIncludes incidents that occurred in a hotel or motel room, at a shelter, or threats made over the 

telephone.

c

Excludes cases for which the location of incident was not reported.

Table 5. 

Weapon use among defendants in intimate partner violence cases in 16 

large counties, by charge type, May 2002

Percent of defendants charged with a—

Weapon use All cases Felony Misdemeanor

Total 100% 100% 100%

Primary weapon defendant used 

during the incident 26.0 44.1 21.9

Firearm 2.0 6.2 1.0

Knife/sharp object 5.8 14.5 3.9

Hard object/wall 5.7 8.8 4.9

Blunt object 7.1 8.4 6.9

Other weapon* 3.1 3.3 3.1

Unknown weapon 2.3 2.8 2.2

Defendant did not use a weapon 74.0 55.9 78.1

Total cases 3,750 693 3,057

*Includes flammable items, ropes, telephone cords, belts, and other items.

Table 4. 

Alcohol and drug use among defendants in intimate partner violence 

cases in 16 large counties, by charge type, May 2002

Percent of defendants charged with a—

Alcohol or drug use All cases Felony Misdemeanor

Total 100% 100% 100%

Defendant was using alcohol or 

drugs at the time of the incident 32.8 32.9 32.7

Alcohol only 28.6 28.0 28.7

Drugs only 1.8 2.5 1.6

Alcohol and drugs 1.0 1.7 0.9

Other substance* 1.4 0.7 1.6

Defendant was not using alcohol or 

drugs at the time of the incident 67.2 67.1 67.3

Total cases 3,750 693 3,057

*Includes unknown substances.
4 Profile of Intimate Partner Violence Cases in Large Urban Counties

Nearly 9 in 10 victims of IPV sustained an 

injury during the incident; about 1 in 10 

suffered a severe injury

Eighty-nine percent of IPV victims were injured

as a result of the incident (table 6). Most victims

sustained injuries that were of a less severe

nature, such as minor cuts, redness, bruises, and

complaints of pain. Nine percent of victims sustained more severe injuries, including gunshot

and stab wounds, rape or sexual assault, severe

lacerations, and broken bones.

The overall prevalence of any victim injury was

comparable between felony and misdemeanor

cases; however, victims of felony IPV (23%) were

more likely than victims of misdemeanor IPV

(5%) to suffer more severe injuries. Nearly 3% of

all felony IPV victims suffered a gunshot or a

stab wound, 8% were raped or sexually assaulted,

and 9% suffered severe lacerations or burns.

A direct witness was present in more than 

40% of intimate partner violence cases; half 

of those witnesses were children

Half of intimate partner violence cases were witnessed by a third party (table 7). The majority of

those witnesses were direct eyewitnesses to the

violence.

Children were witnesses to the violence in 22%

of IPV cases (table 8). These child witnesses

accounted for half of the direct eyewitnesses to

the violence (not shown in table). In another

14% of IPV cases, a child was present at the time

of the incident, but did not directly witness the

violence.

Table 7. 

Witness to the incident in intimate partner violence cases in 16 large 

counties, by charge type, May 2002

Percent of defendants charged with a—

Presence of witness All cases Felony Misdemeanor

Total 100% 100% 100%

Witness to the incident 49.9 53.8 49.0

Direct/eyewitness 43.0 45.0 42.5

Indirect witness* 8.1 9.2 7.9

No witness to the incident 50.1 46.2 51.0

Total cases 3,750 693 3,057

Note: Percents do not sum to 100% because prosecutorial files may indicate both direct and indirect 

witnesses to the incident.

*Includes individuals with knowledge of the incident but did not visually witness the incident.

Table 8. 

Children present during the incident in intimate partner violence cases 

in 16 large counties, by charge type, May 2002

Percent of defendants charged with a—

Presence of children All cases Felony Misdemeanor

Total 100% 100% 100%

Child was present during incident 36.4 36.9 36.3

Child witnessed violence 22.0 22.7 21.8

Child did not witness violence 14.4 14.3 14.5

Child not present during incident 63.6 63.1 63.7

Total cases 3,750 693 3,057

Table 6. 

Most severe injury to victim in intimate partner violence cases in 16 large 

counties, by charge type, May 2002

Percent of defendants charged with a—

Type of injury All cases Felony Misdemeanor

Total 100% 100% 100%

Any injury 89.2 86.0 90.0

More severe injury 8.6 22.8 5.4

Gunshot/stab wound 0.7 2.6 0.2

Rape/sexual assault 1.7 8.3 0.2

Severe lacerations/burns 4.8 8.7 4.0

Other major injurya 1.4 3.2 1.0

Less severe injuryb 60.7 45.3 64.2

Unknown injury 19.9 17.9 20.3

Not injured/unknown 10.8 14.0 10.0

Total cases 3,750 693 3,057

a

Includes loss of teeth, broken bones, and loss of consciousness.

bIncludes minor cuts, redness, bruises, and complaints of pain.
October 2009 5

Physical evidence was obtained in about 

7 in 10 intimate partner violence cases

Physical evidence, such as photos, tapes of the

911 call, and forensic evidence, was obtained in

68% of IPV cases (table 9). Photographic evidence and the tape of a 911 call were the most

common forms of physical evidence obtained.

Physical evidence was obtained in a higher percentage of felony (75%) than misdemeanor

(66%) cases. 

The types of evidence obtained differed slightly

between felony and misdemeanor IPV cases.

Prosecutor files were more likely to indicate that

forensic evidence had been obtained in felony

intimate partner violence cases (10%) than in

misdemeanor IPV cases (2%). Felony cases were

also more likely to result in a weapon being

recovered (11%) and medical records being

obtained (10%) than misdemeanor IPV cases.

In addition to physical evidence, a statement was

obtained from a witness to the incident in just

under half of IPV cases. Felony cases were more

likely than misdemeanor cases to feature a witness statement. In about 1 in 10 cases of IPV, the

prosecution obtained a statement from the

defendant. 

Nearly 1 in 4 intimate partner violence 

victims had reported prior violence by the 

same defendant to police

One factor known to affect outcomes in criminal

cases is a defendant’s prior criminal history.

While the survey did not collect information on

a defendant’s entire criminal history, two measures of prior domestic violence were documented from information recorded in prosecutor files: 1) history of abuse between the victim

and the defendant in the case, and 2) whether the

victim reported any prior violence to the police.

Forty-six percent of intimate partner violence

cases involved a defendant with a prior history of

abuse toward the same victim, and 24% of victims of IPV had reported prior violence to police

(table 10). These percentages were similar for

both felony and misdemeanor IPV.

Table 10. 

History and reporting of prior violence between victim and defendant 

in intimate partner violence cases in 16 large counties, by charge type, 

May 2002

Defendants charged with a—

Percent of cases in which— All cases Felony Misdemeanor

There was a history of abuse between 

victim and defendant 46.3% 46.6% 46.3%

Victim reported prior violence by 

defendant to police 23.5 26.1 22.9

Total cases 3,750 693 3,057

Table 9. 

Evidence obtained in intimate partner violence cases in 16 large counties, 

by charge type, May 2002

Percent of defendants charged with a—

Type of evidence All cases Felony Misdemeanor

Total 100% 100% 100%

Any evidence obtained 83.5 90.9 81.8

Physical evidence 67.9 74.9 66.3

Photos of victim/defendant 46.5 44.9 46.9

Tape of 911 call 25.9 30.4 24.9

Photos of scene 12.2 19.8 10.5

Weapon recovered 4.7 10.7 3.3

Medical records 3.4 10.4 1.8

Forensic evidence 3.3 9.8 1.8

Other evidence 8.3 11.3 7.7

 Statement from witness 45.9 58.0 43.1

 Statement from defendant 10.2 12.7 9.7

No evidence obtained 16.5 9.1 18.2

Total cases 3,750 693 3,057

Note: Detail does not sum to total because more than one type of evidence was obtained in some cases.
6 Profile of Intimate Partner Violence Cases in Large Urban Counties

Most convictions for intimate partner 

violence were for a misdemeanor charge

Fifty-six percent of intimate partner violence

cases filed with the court in the 16 participating

counties resulted in a conviction (table 11). Most

of those convictions were for a misdemeanor. A

third (33%) of the cases were discontinued by the

prosecution or dismissed by the court; less than

1% ended in acquittal. Another 9% of defendants

were in a pretrial diversion or deferred adjudication status one year after their initial appearance.3

The percentage of cases filed with the court that

led to a conviction varied across the 16 counties,

ranging from a low of 17% to a high of 89%. One

factor contributing to differences in conviction

rates was the difference in case filing practice

utilized by prosecutors in the counties. In 9 of

the 16 jurisdictions, prosecutors indicated they

generally screened cases to determine whether to

pursue a conviction prior to a defendant’s initial

court appearance. In the remaining seven jurisdictions, the decision whether to pursue a conviction was made after the case was filed in

court. The conviction rate was 72% among the

nine jurisdictions that screened cases prior to filing (See Methodology, table 17). Comparatively,

37% of cases filed led to a conviction in jurisdictions that did not screen before the initial filing.

For more information on case screening policies

and differences in case outcomes by jurisdiction,

see the Methodology.

Most convicted defendants in intimate 

partner violence cases received a jail 

sentence

More than 80% of defendants convicted in intimate partner violence cases received either a jail

(75%) or prison (7%) sentence (table 12). Fortyfour percent of defendants convicted of felony

IPV were sentenced to prison for one year or

more. A jail sentence was imposed on 4 in 5

defendants convicted of a misdemeanor and on

about half of defendants convicted of a felony.

About 1 in 5 convicted defendants were not

incarcerated, receiving a probation sentence

instead. 

Cases resulting in a conviction were more 

likely to have a third party witness the 

incident 

The characteristics of cases that resulted in a

conviction were compared to the characteristics

of cases in which prosecution was declined or

that resulted in a dismissal or acquittal. Excluded

from the analysis were 1) cases that resulted in

pretrial diversion or deferred adjudication; 2)

cases for which the final outcome was unknown;

and 3) cases whose outcome was pending as of 

one year after the initial court filing. A total of

409 cases were excluded from the analysis.

3

Cases in pretrial diversion or deferred adjudication status 

generally have not reached a final adjudication outcome. 

Many defendants who successfully complete the requirements of a diversion program have their case dismissed. 

Defendants who do not complete program requirements are 

generally convicted.

Table 12. 

Most severe sentence imposed on convicted defendants in 16 large 

counties, by conviction charge, May 2002

Percent of defendants charged with a—

Most severe sentence All casesa Felony Misdemeanor

Total 100% 100% 100%

Prison 7.4 43.9 0.2

Jail 75.3 46.4 81.2

Probation 17.3 9.7 18.7

Total cases b 2,010 330 1,630 

Note: Table excludes cases pending as of May 31, 2003.

a

Includes cases for which a conviction charge was unknown.

bExcludes the 3.6% of cases that resulted in conviction for which sentencing data were not available.

Table 11. 

Adjudication outcome in intimate partner violence cases in 16 large 

counties, by charge type, May 2002 

Percent of defendants charged with a—

Adjudication outcome All cases Felony Misdemeanor

Total 100% 100% 100%

Convicted 56.0 60.5 54.9

Felony 9.0 46.5 0.4

Misdemeanor 45.6 13.7 52.8

Unknown 1.4 0.3 1.7

Dismissal/nolle prosequi 33.0 31.4 33.4

Acquittal 0.6 0.9 0.6

Pretrial diversion or deferred 

adjudication 8.6 5.6 9.3

Case pending a 1.8 1.6 1.8

Total casesb 3,729 685 3,044 

a

 As of May 31, 2003.

b Excludes cases for which adjudication outcomes were not available.
October 2009 7

A third party witnessed the incident in more

than half (56%) of the cases that resulted in a

conviction, compared to 41% of cases that were

adjudicated by dismissal, acquittal, or nolle

prosequi (table 13). The prosecution obtained

physical evidence and a statement by the defendant in a slightly larger percentage of cases that

resulted in conviction than those that did not.

Cases that led to a conviction were also more

likely to have a history of abuse between the victim and the defendant, as well as a child present

at the time of the incident. A somewhat higher

percentage of convicted defendants were using

alcohol or drugs at the time of the incident, compared to defendants who were not convicted.

Cases in which the defendant made a 

formal statement were twice as likely to 

result in conviction

The survey collected information about the

characteristics of intimate partner violence cases

that may influence the likelihood that a case will

result in conviction. Logistic regression analysis

was used to assess the unique contribution of

various case characteristics to the probability of

conviction (table 14). The analysis produced

estimates of the association between each independent variable (the case characteristics) and

the dependent variable (the likelihood of conviction). See the Methodology for more information

about logistic regression techniques.

In general the logistic regression analysis yielded

patterns of influence on the probability of conviction similar to that of the bivariate results.

The presence of a statement from the defendant

was the case characteristic with the greatest

impact on the likelihood of conviction. The odds

ratio indicated that cases in which prosecutors

obtained a statement from the defendant were

twice as likely to result in conviction than cases

in which there was no statement. Additionally,

the presence of a third-party witness to the incident increased the likelihood of conviction by

1.7 times, as did a documented history of abuse

between the victim and defendant. Whether

physical evidence was obtained was also positively, although less strongly, associated with the

likelihood of a conviction. Other case characteristics, such as whether a child was present at the

time of the incident and whether the defendant

used a weapon, had little independent impact on

the probability of a conviction.4

4

Other factors potentially related to the probability of conviction were also included in the logistic regression model but 

are not reported in table 14. See the Methodology for more 

detail.

Table 14. 

Logistic regression analysis of the effect of case characteristics on the 

probability of conviction in intimate partner violence cases in 16 large 

counties, May 2002

Case characteristics Odds ratio*

Statement from defendant 2.04

Witness to the incident 1.73

History of abuse 1.69

Physical evidence obtained 1.54

Victim injured in incident 1.28

Defendant using drugs/alcohol at time of incident 1.11

Statement from victim 1.05

Child present at time of incident 1.01

Weapon used in incident 0.99

Note: Table presents the results of a logistic regression analysis with the dependent variable indicating 

the predicted probability that any conviction was obtained. A total of 3,341 cases were included in the 

logistic regression analysis. Excluded from the analysis were all cases that resulted in pretrial diversion 

or deferred adjudication, cases with an unknown adjudication outcome, and cases pending as of May 

31, 2003. Also excluded from the analysis were cases for which data were unavailable for one or more 

variables included in the statistical model. Other variables potentially related to the probability of conviction were also included in the logistic regression analysis. These included defendant race and gender, 

whether the defendant was charged with a felony or misdemeanor, and a variable that accounted for 

individual county-level effects. See the Methodology for more detail.

*An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that the variable is associated with an increased likelihood that 

the case resulted in conviction. Variables with larger odds ratios have a larger effect on the probability of 

conviction than variables with smaller odds ratios.

Table 13. 

Characteristics of intimate partner violence cases in 16 large counties, 

by adjudication outcome, May 2002

Adjudication outcome

Conviction

Case characteristics

Dismissal/acquittal/

nolle prosequi Any convictiona Felony Misdemeanor

Incident characteristics

Defendant used alcohol or drugs 29.0% 34.7% 34.1% 35.1%

Child present at time of incident 30.8 40.1 38.6 40.3

Weapon used in incident 25.7 26.7 46.1 23.1

Victim injured in incident 91.6 90.6 78.7 92.7

Witness to the incident 40.6 56.4 59.9 55.9

Direct/eyewitness 36.7 47.0 47.0 47.0

Indirect witness 4.2 11.2 13.5 11.1

Prior history

History of abuse between victim 

and defendant 40.4% 51.9% 53.3% 52.1%

Victim reported prior violence 

by defendant to police 24.1 24.9 28.7 24.5

Evidence obtained

Any physical evidence obtained 63.4% 70.6% 81.4% 68.5%

Statement from witness 44.9 45.3 57.2 43.0

Statement from defendant 5.5 13.1 18.6 12.1

Total casesb 1,255 2,086 334 1,699

a

Includes cases in which conviction charge was unknown.

bExcludes cases with pretrial diversion or deferred adjudication, cases with an unknown adjudication 

outcome, and cases pending as of May 31, 2003.
8 Profile of Intimate Partner Violence Cases in Large Urban Counties

About 1 in 8 intimate partner violence cases involved a female defendant and male victim; another 1 in 20 involved a 

defendant and victim of the same gender

Some case characteristics differed based on the gender of the defendant and victim. Cases with male defendants and female victims

were more likely than others to entail a history of abuse between victim and defendant (table 15). A child was also more likely to

have witnessed the violence in these cases. Defendant weapon use was more prevalent in cases with female defendants and male

victims than in other cases.

A larger percentage of cases with male defendants and female victims resulted in conviction than cases with female defendants and

male victims or same-gender cases (table 16). Female defendants convicted of IPV against male defendants were relatively less likely

to receive an incarceration sentence.

Table 15. 

Incident characteristics of intimate partner violence cases in 16 large counties, by defendant 

and victim gender, May 2002

Intimate partner violence cases involving a—

Incident characteristic

Male defendant and 

female victim

Female defendant and 

male victim

Defendant and victim of 

same gender

Percent of cases in which—

Defendant was using drugs or alcohol 33.4% 28.1% 34.2%

Weapon was used in incident 23.2 41.3 35.6

Victim was injured in incident 91.0 90.2 94.5

Witness to the incident 50.9 46.7 37.7

Child was present at time of incident 38.0 29.5 21.2

Any evidence was obtained 83.0 88.0 82.9

History of abuse existed between victim and 

defendant 48.7 34.0 32.2

Victim reported prior violence by defendant to 

police 24.7 17.0 16.4

Total cases 3,140 441 146

Table 16. 

Case processing characteristics of intimate partner violence cases in 16 large counties, 

by defendant and victim gender, May 2002

Percent of intimate partner violence cases involving a—

Case processing characteristic

Male defendant and 

female victim

Female defendant and 

male victim

Defendant and victim 

of same gender

Total 100% 100% 100%

Most serious arrest charge

Felony 19.1% 14.5% 16.4%

Misdemeanor 80.9 85.5 83.6

Adjudication outcome*

Convicted 59.8% 40.3% 43.7%

Felony 9.9 4.9 5.6

Misdemeanor 48.5 33.6 37.3

Unknown 1.4 1.9 0.7

Dismissal/nolle prosequi/acquittal 32.6 43.7 44.4

Pretrial diversion or deferred adjudication 7.7 16.0 12.0

Most severe sentence imposed on convicted 

defendants

Prison 7.5% 5.0% 10.9%

Jail 76.2 65.8 67.3

Probation 16.3 29.2 21.8

Total cases 3,140 441 146

*Excludes cases with an unknown outcome and those pending as of May 31, 2003.
October 2009 9

Methodology

Data Collection

This report is based on data collected from the

study Processing of Domestic Violence Cases in

State Courts, conducted by the Bureau of Justice

Statistics. Data were collected by the Pretrial Services Resource Center, Washington, D.C., under

grant 2002-BJ-CX-0001. State prosecutors and

courts in 40 of the 75 largest counties were asked

to participate in a pilot study examining how

domestic violence (DV) cases are handled by the

justice system. These counties were identified

because they had participated in the State Court

Processing Statistics, 2002 data collection, which

collected case processing information on a sample of felony cases filed in state courts. Of the

counties asked to participate in the study on

domestic violence case processing, prosecutors

and courts in the following 16 counties agreed:

In each of the 16 counties, the prosecutor’s office

or the court clerk’s office compiled a list of

domestic violence cases filed in state court in

May 2002. In 7 of the 16 counties, the case list

was provided by a specialized DV prosecution

unit. In the remaining 9 counties, the case list

was generated by examining all cases opened in

May 2002 to identify those that contained a

domestic violence charge. 

Domestic violence was defined as “intentional

physical violence committed, attempted, or

threatened between family members, intimate

partners, or household cohabitants.” Family

members included persons related by blood or

marriage. Intimate partners included marital

relations, such as spouses, ex-spouses, and common-law spouses, as well as boyfriends or girlfriends, present or past. A case was classified as

domestic violence if 1) it met the above definition, based on the relationship of the victim to

the defendant, and 2) the underlying charge was

for a violent offense or for a violation of a protection order. For a small number of cases, the prosecutor’s files either could not be located or were

not available for legal reasons, such as the case

was still pending at the time of data collection or

the case file was sealed to comply with statutory

regulations.

State prosecutors and courts in the participating

counties provided data on 4,562 defendants

whose most serious arrest charge was a domestic

violence offense (DV). Approximately 83% of the

4,562 identified DV cases, or 3,750 cases,

involved a victim and defendant who were intimate partners. See appendix table 2 for the distribution of intimate partner violence cases by

participating jurisdiction. 

Data sources

Data on the 3,750 intimate partner violence

cases (IPV) are based on the information contained in both prosecutor files and court records.

Prosecutor files were the primary source of

information on characteristics of the violent

incident, including victim and defendant demographics, measures of the severity of the incident, such as weapon use by the defendant and

whether the victim was injured, history of abuse

between the victim and defendant, and the presence of witnesses to the incident. Court records

State County

Arizona Pima

California Alameda, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, Santa 

Clara

Florida Dade, Palm Beach, Pinellas

Georgia Fulton

Indiana Marion

Ohio Franklin

Tennessee Shelby

Texas El Paso, Tarrant, Travis

Note: See appendix table 2 for the distribution of intimate 

partner violence cases by participating jurisdiction.
10 Profile of Intimate Partner Violence Cases in Large Urban Counties

were the primary source of information on case

processing data, such as charges filed against the

defendant, adjudication outcomes, and sentencing information. Case processing data were documented for one year following the defendant’s

first appearance in court in May 2002. 

This study also captured information about the

general case screening practices employed by

prosecutors at the time of the data collection in

the 16 participating jurisdictions. Prosecutors in

9 of the 16 jurisdictions indicated that cases were

reviewed prior to a defendant’s initial court

appearance to determine whether the case would

be pursued for prosecution. In the remaining

seven jurisdictions, case review by prosecutors

did not occur until after the case was filed with

the court. State law in some of the seven jurisdictions mandates case filing upon arrest. Counties

in which prosecutors review cases after initial filing have a rate of dismissal (49%) that is nearly

two and a half times greater than the comparable

rate in counties that screen prior to court filing

(21%) (table 17).

Multivariate statistical techniques

This report analyzes the characteristics and outcomes of intimate partner violence cases through

both bivariate and multivariate statistical techniques. While bivariate statistics provide a

descriptive overview of intimate partner violence

case characteristics and outcomes, multivariate

analysis can help identify the impacts that specific case characteristics, such as presence of a

witness, evidence obtained, and prior history of

violence between victim and defendant have on

the probability of a conviction. A logistic regression model was used to estimate the impact of

case characteristics on the probability of a conviction. 

Also included in the model were a defendant’s

race and gender, whether the defendant was

charged with a felony or misdemeanor, and individual county-level effects. To account for

county-level effects, a model predicting the

probability of conviction was first run at the

county level, and the residuals produced from

that analysis were added to the main individuallevel model. Incorporating the estimates of the

residuals, which were statistically significant,

Table 17. 

Adjudication outcome in intimate partner violence cases in 16 large 

counties, by prosecutor screening practice, May 2002

Prosecutors screened cases—

Adjudication outcome

Prior to defendant's initial 

appearance in court

After defendant's initial 

appearance in court

Total 100% 100%

Conviction 71.5 37.0

Dismissal/nolle prosequi/acquittal 20.9 49.2

Pretrial diversion/deferred adjudication 5.1 12.8

Case pending* 2.5 0.9

Note: Adjudication outcomes available for 99.4% of all intimate partner violence cases.

*As of May 31, 2003.
October 2009 11

into the model allowed for the ability to isolate

the impact of case characteristics on the likelihood of a conviction while accounting for the

independent county effects. 

The findings from this study are based on a complete enumeration of the cases processed in the

month of May in the 16 counties agreeing to participate in the study. Given this approach to data

collection, BJS did not compute confidence

intervals for the estimates, nor did BJS conduct

statistical significance tests to compare the estimates across different subgroups and to evaluate

the logistic regression analysis. Findings in this

report may not be representative of those that

would have been obtained by examining cases

processed throughout the entire year, or from

other counties that did not participate in the

study.

The logistic regression analyses were limited and

intended to reflect the effects of selected factors

that were available in the data collected. Other

factors could potentially be related to the probability of conviction. For example, information

about whether the defendant was arrested at the

scene of the crime and the defendant’s prior

criminal history was unavailable. If data on these

variables were available, the logistic regression

results could be altered.

Appendix Table 2. 

Number of defendants in intimate partner violence cases in 16 large counties, by county, 

state, and charge type, May 2002

Number of defendants charged with a—

County and State All cases Felony Misdemeanor

Pima, AZ 41 12 29

Alameda, CA 139 8 131

Orange, CA 298 24 274

Riverside, CA 317 110 207

San Diego, CA 301 69 232

Santa Clara, CA 276 57 219

Dade, FL 392 83 309

Palm Beach, FL 117 26 91

Pinellas, FL 299 93 206

Fulton, GA 123 19 104

Marion, IN 298 85 213

Franklin, OH 375 19 356

Shelby, TN 177 24 153

El Paso, TX 237 34 203

Tarrant, TX 147 0 147

Travis, TX 213 30 183

Total 3,750 693 3,057

Appendix Table 1. 

Relationship of victim to defendant in domestic violence cases in 16 large counties, by 

charge type, May 2002

Percent of domestic violence defendants charged with a—

Victim was defendant's— All cases Felony Misdemeanor

Total 100% 100% 100%

Intimate partner 83.4 74.6 85.7

Spouse 33.3 26.3 35.1

Boyfriend or girlfriend 50.1 48.3 50.6

Non-intimate family member 15.5 23.1 13.5

Parent or guardian 3.1 3.8 2.9

Son or daughter 6.2 11.7 4.8

Sibling 3.5 2.8 3.7

Other family member 2.7 4.8 2.1

Non-intimate household member 1.1 2.3 0.8

Total cases* 4,562 940 3,622

*Excludes the 1.4% of cases for which data on victim-defendant relationship were unavailable.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91

*NCJ~227379*

12 Profile of Intimate Partner Violence Cases in Large Urban Counties

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Michael D. Sinclair is acting director.

This Special Report was written by Erica L. Smith and Donald J. Farole, Jr., Ph.D. 

Sean P. Rosenmerkel verified the report.

Georgette Walsh and Jill Duncan edited the report, Tina Dorsey produced the report, and Jayne Robinson prepared the report for

final printing, under the supervision of Doris J. James.

October 2009, NCJ 228193

This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS World Wide

Web Internet site: <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/pipvcluc.htm>.

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov