Guideline 8:14
The court has a variety of sentencing options for defendants who are convicted of, or who admit to sufficient facts to, violating an abuse prevention order or crimes involving domestic abuse.
In addition to the usual sentencing considerations, there are several statutory requirements that are applicable to cases involving domestic abuse.
As in any criminal case, the named victim has the right to provide a victim impact statement at sentencing or the disposition of the case against the defendant about the effects of the crime on the victim and as to a recommended sentence. See G.L. c. 258B, § 3(p); G.L. c. 279, § 4B. Victim input can be made orally in the courtroom or in writing, which can be read into the record by the prosecutor or other representative of the victim. As in a c. 209A hearing, the court should take appropriate steps whenever necessary to separate the victim from the defendant. See Guideline 5:01 Conduct of Hearings After Notice When Both Parties Appear: General.
Whenever a defendant is convicted, admits to sufficient facts, or receives a continuance without a finding for a violation of an abuse prevention order, domestic assault or assault and battery in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 13M, or strangulation in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 15D, the sentencing judge must order that the defendant complete an intimate partner abuse education (IPAE) program, unless the court makes specific written findings of good cause for not so ordering, or the IPAE program finds that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for the program. See G.L. c. 209A, § 7. In addition, G.L. c. 209A, § 7 mandates that the court shall not order substance use disorder treatment or an anger management program as a substitute for an IPAE program. When the court imposes completion of an IPAE program as part of a sentence, G.L. c. 209A, § 10 imposes an assessment of $350.00, in addition to the cost of the IPAE program. This assessment can be waived or reduced when the defendant is indigent or when payment would cause the defendant and/or the defendant’s dependents severe financial hardship.
When a defendant is convicted of violating an abuse prevention order, G.L. c. 209A, § 7(5) requires the imposition of a fine of $25.00. There is also a mandatory domestic violence prevention assessment of $50.00 for misdemeanor convictions of violating an abuse prevention order, and any other crime which would constitute domestic abuse. G.L. c. 258B, § 8. These fees are in addition to the victim and witness fees required by G.L. c. 258B, § 8.
Whenever a defendant is convicted of assault and battery or any offense under c. 265 in the jury session after trial or by plea, G.L. c. 265, § 41 requires the court to make specific findings on the record for not imposing a sentence of incarceration.
Upon entry of a conviction for any misdemeanor offense that has an element the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon the court shall determine whether the victim or intended victim was a family or household member, as defined in G.L. c. 209A, § 1, of the defendant. G.L. c. 265, § 13N. This finding relates to the statutory disqualification for firearm possession under G.L. c. 140, § 129B(1)(i)(F) and G.L. c. 140, § 131(d)(i)(F) for persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence.
In addition to the above statutory requirements, whenever a defendant is placed on probation1 for violation of an abuse prevention order or a crime involving domestic abuse, the court has a wide range of options in ordering specific conditions of probation. These specific terms of probation can include:
- abide by the terms of any c. 209A order or order of protection from another jurisdiction;
- no abuse of and/or stay away from the named victim;
- enter and complete an IPAE program (required, as noted above, for a violation of an abuse prevention order, domestic assault or assault and battery in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 13M, or strangulation in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 15D);
- submit to an evaluation for mental health, anger management, substance use disorder or other appropriate treatment; based on this evaluation, the court may craft appropriate conditions such as inpatient or outpatient treatment;
- abstain from drugs and/or alcohol with random testing;
- comply with electronic monitoring.
Commentary
These sentencing considerations do not depend on the crime having as an element the relationship between the defendant and the victim. These considerations of course apply to violations of G.L. c. 265, § 13M, which was rewritten, effective August 8, 2014, to create a first offense of assault and assault and battery on a family or household member. The definition of “family or household member” for purposes of § 13M is more limited than the definition under G.L. c. 209A, § 1, as it only applies to persons who (i) are or were married to one another, (ii) have a child in common regardless of whether they have ever married or lived together, or (iii) are or have been in a substantive dating or engagement relationship (and not to persons who are or were residing together in the same household are or were related by blood or marriage). This more limited definition that applies only to G.L. c. 265, § 13M, is often referred to in shorthand as “intimate partner abuse,” and the broader definition under c. 209A is referred to as “domestic abuse.” The subsequent offense portion of § 13M and its heightened penalties for this felony offense (up to 2½ years in the house of correction or up to 5 years in state prison), which was previously unenforceable as there was no first offense, remains in effect and is now enforceable where a defendant has previously been convicted of violating G.L. c. 265, § 13M.
A conviction or continuance without a finding pursuant to G.L. c. 209, § 7 (violating an abuse prevention order), G.L. c. 265, § 13M (assault or assault and battery on a family or household member), or G.L. c. 265, § 15D (strangulation or suffocation), requires the sentencing judge to order completion of a certified batterer’s program (now called intimate partner abuse education (IPAE) programs) unless the judge makes specific written findings of good cause why it should not be ordered. Note that the crime of strangulation and suffocation pursuant to G.L. c. 265, § 15D is not limited to family or household members and, where such relationship does not exist, this would be a basis to decline to order completion of the IPAE program. A Order And Findings For Waiving Intimate Partner Abuse Education Program form has been promulgated for use when issuing an order finding good cause not to complete an IPAE program and can be found on Courtyard, the Trial Court’s Intranet.
Probation terms must be clear and strictly enforceable in order to be effective. Commonwealth v. Lally, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 601, 603 (2002) (“ambiguities in probation conditions are construed in favor of the defendant”). A judge may not delegate to probation the setting of the terms of probation. Id. (probation condition ordering “treatment as deemed necessary” will not be read to require random screens). It appears that delegating the scope of a treatment plan to be developed by a substance use or mental health provider, however, is permissible. Commonwealth v. Lomberto, 86 Mass App. Ct. 1109 (2014) (unpublished) (“allowing sex offender program to specify rules for treatment is not an improper delegation of the sentencing judge’s authority to set the conditions of probation”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Substance use and mental health issues often contribute to the occurrence of violence in domestic relationships. Substance use disorder treatment and/or mental health treatment alone does not address violence in intimate partner relationships and should not be used as a substitute for completion of an IPAE program.
While the court may not impose probationary terms unrelated to the substance of the underlying offense, the court retains the authority to impose probationary conditions appropriate to the defendant’s history, the interrelationship between the defendant and victim, and the abusive nature of the case. Commonwealth v. Gomes, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 857, 857-860 (2009).
Consistent reporting by the defendant to the probation officer as well as ongoing contact with the named victim by the probation officer is critical to a reliable assessment of the efficacy of the terms of probation, including participation in the IPAE, in eliminating violence in the relationship.
The Department of Public Health (DPH) certifies IPAE programs for the Commonwealth. All offer sliding scales for their fees, and most permit participants to perform community service in lieu of fees. These programs are offered in a number of locations, are conducted in a number of languages, and are available to persons of all sexual orientations. There are also programs specifically for juveniles. For a list of IPAE programs go to Mass.gov, search for “Intimate Partner Abuse Education Program Services,” and click on “Download a list of Massachusetts Certified Intimate Partner Abuse Education Programs.”
As with any criminal case, it is important for the court to hear from all parties and to fashion a comprehensive and appropriate sentence. Advanced technical options, including GPS monitoring and remote testing devices, have enhanced the ability of the probation department to monitor defendants and thus have enhanced the ability of the sentencing judge to fashion appropriate sentences utilizing these options.
The mandatory domestic violence prevention assessment of $50.00 is provided for by G.L. c. 258B, § 8 and is to be deposited in the Domestic and Sexual Violence Prevention and Victim Assistance Fund. That fund will be controlled by the DPH and will fund grants for innovative domestic violence prevention programs. G.L. c. 17, § 20. This fee, along with the victim witness fee, shall be the defendant’s first obligation. If it is determined by a written finding of fact that payment of the fee cause a substantial financial hardship to the person against whom the assessment is imposed or the person’s immediate family or the person’s dependents, the court may order a structured payment plan unless even a structured payment plan would continue to impose a severe financial hardship. A finding of a severe financial hardship shall be made independently of a finding of indigency for purposes of appointing counsel. Such a finding can justify waiting this fee. An Assessment or Waiver of Moneys in Criminal Case form is available on Courtyard, the Trial Court’s Intranet. If the person is sentenced to a correctional facility in the Commonwealth and the assessment has not been paid, the court shall note the assessment on the mittimus.
General Laws c. 265, § 13N requires the court to make a judicial finding about the relationship of the defendant and victim or intended victim for qualifying offenses upon entry of a conviction for any misdemeanor offense that has an element the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, and whether the conviction is entered as a result of a trial, or a plea, or conviction entered after a probation violation. This finding, which relates to the statutory disqualification for firearm possession under G.L. c. 140, § 129B(1)(i)(F) and G.L. c. 140, § 131(d)(i)(F) for persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, is required to be reported to the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS). Use the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Convictions for Firearm Disqualification form to capture this information. The business user guide docketing instructions that enable the automatic reporting of the required information from MassCourts to DCJIS are available on Courtyard, the Trial Court’s Intranet.
Contact
Phone
Address
| Last updated: | October 20, 2025 |
|---|