Following a conviction of first-degree assault, first-degree rape, and first-degree sexual abuse, the Appellant appealed arguing the trial court committed reversable error when it denied his motion for directed verdict on the charge of first-degree assault and that he was prejudiced by statements made by the Commonwealth during voir dire concerning the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Affirmed.
Issues include whether a defendant may invoke the rights afforded to a victim or inquire whether a victim’s rights may have been violated as a basis for vacating a conviction. Issues also include whether evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for tampering with evidence where the defendant drops drugs in the presence and view of police in light of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Bell. Affirmed in part.
Reversed in part.
Issues involve whether the biological father of a stillborn child can be deemed to have “willfully abandoned the care and maintenance of his . . . child.” Reversed and remanded.
At trial, the Defendant was convicted of second-degree assault, second-degree strangulation, first-degree unlawful imprisonment and fourth-degree assault, among other offenses. On appeal, Appellant argued he was entitled to a new trial based upon juror and prosecutor misconduct. Affirmed in part. Vacated in part. Remanded.
The evidence presented did not rise to the level of a “course of conduct” which seriously alarms, annoys, intimidates, or harasses the person and serves no legitimate purpose and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial mental distress. In addition, when petitioning the Court to extend an IPO, acts cannot simply be the same acts that were relied upon more than three prior to support the initial order. Vacated.
There was sufficient evidence for the trial court to reasonably infer that the perpetrator’s conduct caused the victim to fear imminent physical injury and there was sufficient evidence of stalking to support a finding of domestic violence. Affirmed.
Human Trafficking; Human Trafficking Victims Service Fee
Any person convicted of an offense in KRS 529.100 or 529.110 shall be ordered to pay, in addition to any other fines, penalties, or applicable forfeitures, a human trafficking victims service fee of not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to be remitted to the fund created in KRS 529.140. Appellant argued that the trial court should have waived the fee as to him, due to indigency. Affirmed.
Indigenous women in the United States are among the most vulnerable to intimate partner violence (IPV), which has reached endemic levels. The purpose of this study was to understand contextual factors and barriers to these women leaving violence. Questions about women remaining in abusive relationships, though pervasive, place focus on women rather than the socio-structural context of historical oppression that gives rise to pandemic rates of intersecting structural violence against women (Pedersen et al., 2013; Smye et al., 2020; Weaver, 2009).
College student victimization is currently a major public health problem, with 20%–25% of female students and 7% of male students experiencing at least one sexual assault (Flack et al., 2015). Nearly 57% of adults who report experiencing abusive and violent dating behaviors said it occurred in college (National Domestic Violence Hotline), and 12% of college students experience stalking (McNamara & Marsil, 2012). Victimization is associated with lower academic efficacy, higher stress, and lower institutional commitment (Banyard et al., 2020; Jordan, Combs, & Smith, 2014).
Researchers estimate that 12 million people are affected by domestic violence (DV) every year in the United States, with 1 in 4 adult women and 1 in 7 adult men experiencing severe physical violence (e.g., kicked, strangled, burned on purpose, beaten, having a weapon used against them) in their lifetime (Smith, Zhang, Basile et al., 2018).
