Opinion ID: 2292857
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gunn.

Text: Gunn contends he was entitled to a directed verdict on the murder charge because the Commonwealth's evidence was scant and unreliable. . . . In other words, Gunn's argument is not that the Commonwealth failed to present any incriminating evidence against him; rather, his argument is that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was unreliable or should not be believed. Gunn's argument appears improperly to characterize the role of a court in ruling on a directed verdict motion. When ruling on a motion for directed verdict, a court must assume that the evidence for the Commonwealth is true. . . . [37] We do not weigh the credibility of witnesses because that task is reserved for the jury. [38] Instead, a court must only determine if there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found a defendant guilty. In the case at hand, there is no dispute the Commonwealth presented evidence showing Gunn both fired the shot that killed Brown and admitted to others his involvement in shooting Brown. There also was evidence Gunn knew that at least one person was on the other side of the door when Gunn fired through it, meaning intent to kill may reasonably have been inferred. [39] There was sufficient evidence for a jury to have found Gunn guilty of intentional murder.