Sparks v. State

A jury found Thomas Sparks guilty of piercing the body of a person under the age of eighteen. placeplaceSparksappeals, contending the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. We find no error and affirm placeplaceSparksconviction. The standard of review for the denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is the same as that for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.1 Under that standard, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to uphold the jury’s verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.2 A directed verdict of acquittal should be granted only “where there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence introduced with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom shall demand a verdict of acquittal.”3

Viewed under this standard, the evidence shows that Stephanie Barber paid placeplaceSparksto have her tongue pierced. At the time, Barber was seventeen years old, but she told placeplaceSparks she was eighteen years old and had left her identification at home. During the signing of the contract/consent form, Sparks told Barber to write on the form that she had shown Sparks a driver’s license when, in fact, Barber did not have her driver’s license and did not show it to Sparks. placeplaceSparksdid not present any evidence at trial.