Pamela Bell King, appellant, and Patsy Bell Brown, appellee, are two of the six children of Palmer Rufus Bell Decedent. In July of 2002, Decedent executed a will in which King and Brown shared equally in the bulk of his estate and were named co-executors. The execution of this will was videotaped. In August of 2002, King and Brown were appointed as Decedent’s guardians of the person. Shortly thereafter, King and Brown began quarreling regarding the manner and extent to which Decedent needed care, and, following a fire that destroyed Brown’s home in January of 2003, King took over the care of Decedent, who was suffering from dementia. On February 28, 2003, Decedent executed a new will which revoked his 2002 will, bequeathed the bulk of his estate to King, and disinherited Brown. The execution of the 2003 will was also videotaped. After King offered the 2003 will for probate, Brown filed a caveat, contending that the will was invalid on the grounds of either lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence. The matter proceeded to trial, and, after viewing the videotaped execution of both wills, the jury found that the 2003 will was invalid. The general verdict did not indicate whether the jury based its verdict on grounds of testamentary incapacity, undue influence, or both. King then filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for new trial, both of which the trial court denied. King now appeals. 1. King generally contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that the subscribing witnesses testified that Decedent was lucid at the time he signed the will. ” ‘Where there is any evidence upon which the verdict can be based, however, the jury is free to disbelieve whatever facts are inconsistent with their conclusion and the court cannot substitute its conclusion for that of the jury and enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. . . .’ ” Emphasis omitted. Williams v. Swint , 239 Ga. 66-67 1 235 SE2d 489 1977. Here, there was abundant evidence on which the jury could base its verdict. For example, the jury was able to view the videotaped execution of the 2003 will in order to draw its own conclusion regarding the extent of Decedent’s lucidity or incapacity at that time. In addition, medical records and testimony from a psychiatrist showed that Decedent had been suffering from dementia and was likely confused at the time the will was signed. Also, testimony from others showed that Decedent suffered from a number of symptoms associated with dementia, including the inability to recognize family members. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying King’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Id.
2. King contends that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury in several ways.
