Opinion ID: 2292857
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wanton Endangerment.

Text: Gunn was convicted of nine counts of wanton endangermentone count for each person present in Stone's home when Gunn shot through Stone's front door. Gunn contends his conduct did not support a finding of guilt on nine counts of wanton endangerment. [33] We disagree. The Court of Appeals has previously rejected this argument. In West v. Commonwealth, a defendant was charged with seven counts of wanton endangerment based upon the seven people who were in the homes into which the defendant fired. [34] Similarly to Gunn, the defendant in West argued he should only have been charged with three counts of wanton endangerment since he only fired three shots. After analyzing precedent and the wanton endangerment statute, KRS 508.060, the Court of Appeals concluded the shootings which endangered seven persons in total could be charged as seven separate offenses of wanton endangerment. [35] We agree with the conclusions and analysis of the Court of Appeals. We have held that Kentucky's wanton endangerment statute is designed to protect each and every person from each act coming within the definition of the statute. It is not a statute designed to punish a continuous course of conduct. [36] So Gunn was properly charged with wanton endangerment as to each person who was inside Stone's home when Gunn fired into it. The trial court did not err in refusing to grant Gunn a directed verdict on the nine counts of wanton endangerment.