United States V. Hayes - Facts and Issues

Facts and Issues

The facts of the Hayes case illustrate the distinction. In 1994 Hayes had been convicted in West Virginia of the misdemeanor of simple battery. The offense was committed against his wife in a domestic dispute. In 2004, the police found him in possession of firearms. Had he violated the Act?

The prosecution claimed the 1994 conviction for simple battery was sufficient to place him under the federal firearms ban. He had been convicted of a violent misdemeanor (battery) under state law. And the battery was, in fact, against his wife. This was enough, the prosecution alleged, to make that a conviction of a predicate crime of "domestic violence" which would, accordingly, bring him within the scope of the federal prohibition.

Hayes claimed that more was required before he was subject to the federal firearms possession ban of the Gun Control Act. He argued that the state must have a statute that specifically defined and prohibited "domestic violence" as an independent crime; a person convicted of that crime would then be subject to the federal prohibition under Act, but a person only convicted of another crime - such as simple battery - would not be so subjected.

Hayes agreed the person he battered was, in fact, his wife; but in 1994 the state of West Virginia did not have a statute that prohibited "domestic violence" as a specific crime. Therefore, Hayes argued, it was in effect legally impossible for him to be banned from firearm possession under the "domestic violence" extension for acts committed within West Virginia.

Hayes moved to dismiss the federal indictment but the trial court denied his motion. He entered a guilty plea, subject to his right to appeal the motion's denial, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Hayes on appeal. It decided that the state misdemeanor law must contain, as an element of the crime, a "domestic relationship between the offender and the victim," 482 F.3d 749, 751 (2007), and that the indictment was indeed faulty. The Supreme Court then accepted the case to resolve a split among the circuits.