Opinion ID: 2100487
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Finding of Compelling Need Pursuant to KRS 421.350(3)

Text: KRS 421.350(3) states in pertinent part: The court may, on the motion of the attorney for any party and upon a finding of compelling need, order that the testimony of the child be taken outside the courtroom and be recorded for showing in the courtroom before the court and the finder of fact in the proceeding. KRS 421.350(5) defines compelling need as the substantial probability that the child would be unable to reasonably communicate because of serious emotional distress produced by the defendant's presence. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it allowed the children to testify by video deposition (which was later played to the jury at trial) pursuant to a finding of compelling need under this statute. A trial court's finding of compelling need pursuant to KRS 421.350 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Danner v. Commonwealth, 963 S.W.2d 632, 634 (Ky.1998). In this case, the trial court considered the testimony of Julie Griffey, the children's mental health counselor, and from that testimony determined that the children's ages, nine, eleven, and twelve, their history, their course of treatment, and the opinions of Julie Griffey regarding the children's well-being and their ability to testify supported a finding of compelling need. Appellant argues that the sole testimony of Julie Griffey is inadequate to support such a finding and that the trial court erred by failing to find a compelling need for each individual child. We disagree. Appellant did not (and does not now) object to the admissibility of the various opinions expressed by Ms. Griffey during her testimony. Accordingly, we must presume her statements to be admissible for the limited purpose of determining this issue. Commonwealth v. Maricle, 15 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Ky.2000) ([T]his Court is limited to the review of those issues that were raised and ruled on by the trial court.). When Ms. Griffey's testimony is considered in its entirety, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found the content of the testimony to be sufficient to support a finding of compelling need for each child.