Chera Leigh Bowen v. Jackie Curtis Bowen, Jr.
2021 CA 000098
| Ky. Ct. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- On October 15, 2020, Jackie Curtis Bowen, Jr. (Appellee) obtained an emergency protective order after an incident at the parties’ home.
- Appellee testified Chera Leigh Bowen (Appellant) picked up a shotgun, retrieved two shells, threatened to kill herself, and then Appellee grabbed the gun.
- During the altercation Appellant allegedly grabbed Appellee’s neck and broke his necklace; Appellee also reported prior menacing conduct (swerving vehicle) and harassment of his employer.
- The Anderson Circuit Court held a hearing (Oct. 20, 2020), then entered a three-year domestic violence order (DVO), finding by a preponderance that domestic violence occurred and may recur.
- Appellant moved to amend/vacate and requested more findings; the trial court amended the DVO to add specific factual findings and denied vacatur.
- Appellant appealed, arguing (1) a single threat of self-harm does not automatically constitute domestic violence and (2) the neck grab was defensive and insufficient to meet the preponderance standard; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do threats of self-harm with a gun constitute domestic violence? | Bowen: single suicide threat, not directed at victim/children, insufficient to show domestic violence. | Bowen Jr.: suicide threat while armed, plus ammunition retrieval and menacing conduct, caused fear and supports DVO. | Court: Threat of suicide with a gun and menacing behavior with ammunition are sufficient to find domestic violence and risk of recurrence. |
| Does the neck grab constitute domestic violence / meet preponderance? | Bowen: neck grab was defensive and disputed; insufficient evidence. | Bowen Jr.: testified Appellant grabbed his neck during the struggle; supports assault. | Court: Even if defensive, other facts (gun, shells, threat) suffice; DVO stands. |
| Did the trial court abuse discretion or fail to make adequate findings? | Bowen: court relied on erroneous testimony and lacked findings. | Bowen Jr.: trial court properly considered testimony and added findings when requested. | Court: No abuse of discretion; court amended order with additional findings (per Castle) and denied vacatur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Castle v. Castle, 567 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. App. 2019) (trial court required to provide additional findings when appropriate)
- Gullion v. Gullion, 163 S.W.3d 888 (Ky. 2005) (standards for review of domestic-relations orders)
- Crabtree v. Crabtree, 484 S.W.3d 316 (Ky. App. 2016) (threats of suicide coupled with violent acts can support a DVO)
- Hohman v. Dery, 371 S.W.3d 780 (Ky. App. 2012) (articulates preponderance standard and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 934 S.W.2d 276 (Ky. 1996) (preponderance means more likely than not)
- Buddenberg v. Buddenberg, 304 S.W.3d 717 (Ky. App. 2010) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility determinations)