Opinion ID: 1490481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: denial of directed verdict on manufacturing methamphetamine and first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance (methamphetamine)

Text: The Appellant claims the trial court committed reversible error by denying his motion for directed verdict on both the Manufacturing Methamphetamine count and the First-Degree Trafficking in a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) count. Specifically, they argue the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof on both counts. A trial court, on a motion for directed verdict, must draw all fair and reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the Commonwealth. 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 Commonwealth is true, but reserving to the jury questions as to the credibility and weight to be given such testimony. Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky.1991). The standard on appellate review of a ruling on a motion for directed verdict, as set out in Benham [4] and Commonwealth v. Sawhill [5] , 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 verdict of acquittal.