The family court considered the totality of circumstances when denying an extension of a DVO as the denial was based on substantial evidence. To reissue a DVO there must be some showing of a continued need, in this case, the Petitioner simply did not present sufficient evidence to prove an ongoing need, despite being given a full opportunity to do so. Affirmed.

The trial court erred in finding that the Respondent had committed acts of domestic violence against his wife because such a finding was unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence. Reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the DVO entered.

Despite any good intentions in entering the IPO to offer protection after the alleged one-time violent incident as described by the Petitioner, the family court failed to conduct a statutorily required evidentiary hearing before issuing the (non-temporary) IPO. Furthermore, the isolated violent incident alleged in the petition, by itself, did not constitute stalking as defined in Kentucky law. Thus, the IPO entered could not stand. Vacated.

The petition for a domestic violence order did not contain sufficient allegations to indicate that domestic violence and abuse existed under the statute and KRS 403.730(1)(a) does not require the court to set for reasons for dismissing the petition. Affirmed.

The Defendant raised multiple evidentiary issues after being convicted of murdering the woman with whom he was in a dating relationship. Among the issues raised were prosecutorial vindictiveness, educating the jury during voir dire and evidence presented that the victim was afraid of the Defendant and wanted to get away from him and that he stalked her before her death. Affirmed.

The trial court correctly applied the KRE 504(2)(2)(D) exception to spousal privilege to allow the wife to testify against her husband as the situation involved wrongful conduct perpetrated by one spouse upon the person or property of a “third person” while “in the course of wrongful conduct” against the “other spouse.” Affirmed.