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.

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.

Following a conviction for two counts of rape, sodomy, kidnapping, assault, and terroristic threatening, and a single count of tampering with physical evidence, the Appellant appealed alleging five errors, including, the admittance of 404(b) evidence and improper questioning by the Commonwealth. Affirmed.

After being convicted of first-degree rape and being a second-degree persistent felony offender, the Appellant appealed his conviction making several claims of error. Among those claims, was the assertion that the sexual assault nurse examiner did not qualify as an expert witness. 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.

The sole question presented is whether the provisions of KRS 532.045 apply to render a juvenile convicted as a youthful offender of sexual offenses ineligible for probation. Affirmed.

After being tried and convicted of second-degree assault and attempted murder of his girlfriend, the Appellant appealed his conviction arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict and erred by admitting evidence of other bad acts under KRE 404(b). The Opinion was Affirmed.

Issues include whether a defendant who is convicted of an attempted sex crime is required to complete post-incarceration supervision where the provisions of the supervision statute make no mention of attempt crimes, but the provisions of another sex offender statute—SORA—expressly include attempt crimes. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part. Remanded.

For roughly six weeks, students at the University of Louisville reported a series of robberies, burglaries, and a sexual assault for which the appellant was ultimately charged and convicted. Prior to trial, the appellant moved the court to sever the first-degree rape, first-degree robbery, and firstdegree burglary charges, which all involved the same victim, from the remainder of the charges. When weighed against the remaining charges, the trial court correctly found the single incident of rape and assault insufficient to require severance under RCr 8.31. Affirmed.

The issue here is whether an exception under KRE 412 allows the admissibility of sexual activity of the victim after an alleged rape and prior to the report of the crime to police. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s holding.