context: Appellant's conduct, as indicated by the Commonwealth's evidence, exhibited an extreme indifference to the value of human life and created a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to Jonathan and Gabe. Appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict on these two charges.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 906 S.W.2d 327, 334
citation_a.parenthetical: 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
citation_a.sentence: See Port v. Commonwealth, 906 S.W.2d 327, 334 (Ky.1995) (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); Combs v. Commonwealth, 652 S.W.2d 859, 860-61 (Ky.1983) (holding that there was sufficient evidence of wanton endangerment where a bullet came within fifteen feet of a bystander); Hunt v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 15, 38 (Ky.2009) (“It is self-evident that bullets may ricochet.”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 384 S.W.3d 77, 104
citation_b.parenthetical: 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
citation_b.sentence: Cf. Swan v. Commonwealth, 384 S.W.3d 77, 104 (Ky.2012) (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).