After taking the evidence into account, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the perpetrator’s behavior established a course of conduct that met the definition of stalking and that, given his arrest for violating the trial court’s IPO, it was not unreasonable to assume that absent court intervention the conduct was likely to continue in the future. Affirmed.
Other crime or violence
The alleged perpetrator’s due process rights were violated, thus warranting the matter involving the entry of a DVO to be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Vacated and remanded.
The family court had discretion to choose which testimony to believe and which to disbelieve with regard to a DVO, when denying wife’s petition. Affirmed.
The family court’s findings were sufficient and supported by substantial evidence to enter a DVO. Affirmed.
The trial court erred in determining that the Defendant was not a victim of domestic violence with regard to the manslaughter. In order to be eligible for the domestic violence exemption under KRS 439.3401(5), the Defendant is required to show that the domestic violence was involved in the commission of the crime or that there was a relationship or connection between the domestic violence and the crime. Affirmed.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing Appellant to admit “sexually suggestive” photographs of the victim into evidence. Affirmed.
The appellant was convicted of first-degree rape. The rape sentence was enhanced pursuant to the jury finding him guilty of being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO 1). On appeal, the appellant contended that the trial court erred by 1) denying his motion for a directed verdict on the PFO 1 charge and 2) denying his motion to suppress his statements to police. The Kentucky Supreme Court held, affirming the trial court’s judgement.