A jury found Carlos Copeland guilty of two counts of cruelty to children in connection with the malnourishment of his live-in girlfriend’s two-year-old twins.1 He appeals from the convictions entered on the verdict, challenging the court’s denial of his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence, the court’s denial of his motion for a directed verdict or mistrial for alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding photographic evidence, the court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial based on an allegedly prejudicial remark made by the prosecutor, the court’s refusal to give the jury a charge on knowledge, and the presence of a prejudicial statue in front of the courthouse. None of the arguments presents grounds for reversal, so we affirm Copeland’s convictions. 1. The state charged Copeland with committing cruelty to children, alleging that he jeopardized the children’s health while they were in his custody by wilfully depriving them of necessary sustenance.2 In two enumerations of error, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal because the state failed to prove that he wilfully deprived the children of necessary sustenance, and that their health or well-being was jeopardized. He maintains that the children were fed properly and were basically healthy, and attributes any weight and development problems they may have had to their premature births, reflux, and vomiting.
The standard of review for the denial of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal is the same as that for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.3 Under that standard, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to 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.4 Conflicts in the testimony of the witnesses are a matter of credibility for the jury to resolve.5
