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.

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.

On appeal from the entry of an IPO, the Appellant argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in granting the petition because it did not state with particularity the elements of sexual abuse, and thus, it was insufficient to merit a hearing and should have been dismissed. Affirmed.

A mother filed a petition for an order of protection against her husband, on behalf of herself and the parties’ two children. Upon entry of the DVO, the husband appealed alleging insufficient evidence was presented to support the finding of domestic violence. Affirmed.

Appellant appealed from an amended domestic violence order (DVO) granted on behalf of his significant other and her minor child; arguing the family court abused its discretion in refusing to continue the domestic violence hearing for a longer period of time than was granted and that the family court lacked jurisdiction to enter its amended DVO. Affirmed.

On appeal of the entry of a DVO against him, the Appellant argued that the family court failed to make sufficient written findings and that the DVO was not supported by substantial evidence meeting the statutory requirements. The Court of Appeals concluded that the family court’s findings were sufficient and supported by substantial evidence.  Affirmed.

A Kentucky family court maintained an emergency protective order that was issued in a neighboring state on the basis that the victim fled to Kentucky to escape domestic violence. On appeal, the perpetrator argued that the EPO should be reversed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Affirmed.

On appeal of the entry of a domestic violence order, the Appellant argued that the findings of an abuse of power in a relationship and allegations of sex videos being sold online without Appellee’s consent, are not sufficient to support the statutory definition of domestic violence and abuse. Affirmed.

Cross domestic violence petitions were filed amongst a wife and her husband. The family court granted the wife’s petition and denied the husband’s petition. On appeal, the husband argued that the family court erred when it prohibited him from introducing evidence regarding the wife’s mental illness and that the court failed to make sufficient findings of fact. Affirmed.