When arguing against a defendant's motion for directed verdict, we have used the "scintilla of evidence" argument. (There is more than a scintilla of evidence and therefore the jury, as finder of fact, should decide.) Where does this come from?

Sounds to me like your argument is tied to the standard set forth in Chase, 573 S.W.2d at 249 that the court must consider whether there is any evidence which the jury could rationally believe to find guilt. But, presumably a "mere modicum" of evidence would not be sufficient, so maybe your argument should be that there is more than a mere modicum rather than beyond a scintilla. See Butler, 769 S.W.2d at 239.

I have always heard it argued that there is sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict, leaving credibility out of the standard. That seems more appropriate. If the evidence would not constitutionally support a conviction, how could it go to a jury?

Isn't the "scintilla" notion drawn from civil summary judgment practice?

Summary judgment proceedings are akin to directed verdicts, but not identical. Perhaps the two concepts got mixed up somewhere along the way?

Shannon, based on the cases I have found, I would have to say yes.

Martin and John. Thanks for the input. The cases helped.