2 Remaining Bills on Domestic Violence Near Assembly Approval

The legislative agenda for victims of domestic violence is getting a mixed reception in the General Assembly, with two key pieces of legislation likely to pass and two killed in committee.

The measures still in play are a bill that would broaden the categories of behavior for which an abused partner may obtain a protective order and another that would allow the order to remain in force for up to two years, rather than the current one-year limit.

Both deal with the nuances of existing law, but "these are very important bills," said Sen. Sharon M. Grosfeld (D-Montgomery), a sponsor of the bills.

"They are nothing radical, nothing that isn't being done in many, many other states," said Grosfeld, who has been an advocate in the legislature for women's rights since she took office in 1995.

The measures that failed in House and Senate committees include one that would have compelled victims of abuse to testify against their alleged abusers the first time they are charged and come to trial, and another bill that would have lowered the burden of proof needed to get a protective order.

A spouse or significant other now can obtain a protective order only in cases that involve physical abuse, though someone with a more casual relationship, such as a friend or co-worker, can get a similar peace order on grounds that include stalking and harassment.

If the bill to expand the allowable categories wins final approval, spouses could obtain stay-away orders for stalking and harassment. Initially, the bill included malicious destruction of property and trespassing, but those categories were taken out in committees in the House and Senate.

"If you have a neighbor or co-worker who is stalking you, you can get a peace order on grounds of harassment," Grosfeld said. "We want a protection order to offer the same ability to victims of domestic violence."

The second bill poised to pass would extend the length of a protective order from a year to two years if the victim goes to court and asks for the extension after a year. Both bills passed in the Senate last week and were set to be voted on in the House this week.

For the second year in a row, a "spousal privilege" bill that would have made it easier for prosecutors to secure the conviction of a spouse for abuse has died in the House and Senate.

Under current law, for example, a wife who is abused can refuse to testify in court the first time her alleged abuser is charged with assault. After that, prosecutors can compel her to testify. The bill would have taken away a spouse's ability to decline to testify the first time -- sometimes referred to as the "one punch rule."

The measure was written by Glenn F. Ivey, the Prince George's County state's attorney, who testified in the House and Senate in favor of the bill.

"To me, there's no logic to the one punch rule," Ivey said in an interview. "It's a way for a batterer to get away with not being held accountable for their actions. I think we need to, as a society and especially in the law enforcement community, take domestic violence cases much more seriously than we do."

Another bill that died in the House and Senate would have lowered the standard for a judge to issue a protective order. The standard now is "clear and convincing evidence," meaning the judge is roughly 75 to 85 percent sure the victim was abused.

The bill would have changed that standard of evidence to a "preponderance," meaning 51 percent sure that the victim was abused. In a criminal trial, the standard of proof is the commonly known "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is about 98 to 100 percent sure.

Del. Kathleen M. Dumais (D-Montgomery), who sponsored the domestic violence bills in the House, said she is pleased that two of her measures have strong support. "Both measures are important," she said. "It's a good year for victims' rights."