Upon review of a directed verdict, it must be determined “if a reasonable person could only conclude that movant was entitled to a verdict.” Zapp v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 219, 221 (Ky. App. 2009)(citing CR 50.01; Lee v. Tucker, 365 S.W.2d 849 (Ky. 1963)) (footnote omitted). In so determining, “the court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Zapp, 300 S.W.3d at 221.
JOSEPH GAINES, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS, ET AL
DIAMOND POND PRODUCTS, INC.
TAYLOR (PRESIDING JUDGE)
ACREE (CONCURS) AND BUCKINGHAM (SENIOR STATUS JUDGE)(CONCURS)
TO BE PUBLISHED
Upon consideration of a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court must draw all fair and reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the [nonmoving party]. If the evidence is sufficient to induce a reasonable juror to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, a directed verdict should not be given. For the purpose of ruling on the motion, the trial court must assume that the evidence for the [nonmoving party] is true, but reserving to the jury questions as to the credibility and weight to be given to such testimony.
On appellate review, the test of a directed verdict is, if under the evidence as a whole, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt, only then the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.
Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Ky. 1991) (citations omitted).