is, if under the evidence as whole, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt, only then the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.” Id. “There must be evidence of substance, and the trial court is expressly authorized to direct a verdict for the defendant if the prosecution produces no more than a mere scintilla of evidence.” Id. at 187-88. The evidence in this case easily satisfies the elements of first-degree wanton endangerment. As described in the trial testimony, after becoming voluntarily intoxicated, Appellant sat astride a horse just twenty-four feet from a small porch occupied by three adults and three children. He then deliberately fired a shot to the side of the porch where Jonathan and Gabe were seated. Even though his horse be Ky.1983) (<HOLDING>); Hunt v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 15, 38
holding that there was sufficient evidence of wanton endangerment where defendant pointed a gun and fired two shots while in a crowded restaurant thereby creating dangerous atmosphere for other diners holding fifteen to thirty seconds sufficient holding that there was sufficient evidence of wanton endangerment where a bullet came within fifteen feet of a bystander holding that there was insufficient evidence of wanton endangerment where evidence established that the victim was in a back bedroom behind a closed door and hiding under a bed when three shots were fired in the front living room holding that although pointing an unloaded gun would generally not be sufficient to support a conviction for recklessly endangering another person where the commonwealth presented evidence that there was at least one bullet in the gun a conviction could stand