Court Opinion

ID: 9597254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:57:06.278437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:37.531044
License: Public Domain

BUCKINGHAM, Judge,
Dissenting and Filing Separate Opinion:
While I agree with the majority’s analysis of the first issue, I disagree with its analysis of the second issue. Thus, I respectfully dissent.
As for the majority’s analysis of the first issue, I agree that KRS 439.3401(5) only references that part of KRS 533.060 that concerns the procedures for determining whether a person is a victim of domestic violence.
As for the majority’s analysis of the second issue, it assumes the trial court concluded that the Vincent case requires the abuse to be contemporaneous with the offense for which the defendant was convicted before the domestic violence exception to KRS 439.3401(5) applies. I do not read the trial court’s ruling in that manner. Rather, I believe the trial court merely determined factually that there was an insufficient connection between the domestic violence and the crime to warrant the application of the domestic violence exception under KRS 439.3401(5). In other words, the trial court rejected Holland’s testimony. I conclude that the trial court’s determination was not clearly erroneous in this regard and that we should affirm for that reason. See Anderson, 934 S.W.2d at 278-79.