Accordingly, Flynn's conviction must be reversed. Flynn has also argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence. Even though we have decided that reversal is necessary on other grounds, we must resolve the claim of insufficient evidence, since a retrial would be barred if Flynn prevailed on this issue. Flynn's claim of insufficient evidence was based on the contention that the state had failed to present evidence establishing his age. Flynn argued below, and he argues here, that the state's failure should have resulted in a judgment of acquittal.
Torres is consistent with rulings from courts of many jurisdictions.
Some have found that the jury's ability to observe the accused at trial is in itself a sufficient basis for denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal. Others have held that the jury may properly rely on its observation of the accused in combination with other circumstantial indicators of age. In the present case, Flynn argues that his presence at trial should not alone have justified submitting the issue of his age to the jury. In advancing this argument, Flynn implicitly asserts that his presence at trial amounted to the only circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have inferred that he was sixteen years of age or older. Nevertheless, even the limited portions of the transcript included in the record disclose that the jury heard a substantial amount of evidence implying that Flynn was an adult.