Cоuch was found guilty of murder, armed robbery, and motor vehicle theft. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, life imprisonment for armed robbery, and twenty years imprisonment for car theft. 1
1. Couch, whо was sixteen at the time of the crime and at trial, contends that the trial court improperly refused to transfer his case to juvenile court. No delinquency petition was filed, and the superiоr court was not required to hold a transfer hearing.
Lewis v. State,
Under OCGA § 15-11-5 (b), superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction with juvеnile courts over a person who commits a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death. Nоrmally in such cases, the first court to take jurisdiction will retain it.
Relyea v. State,
2. Couch insists that the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding the circumstances of his childhood, his emotional maturity and his mental capacity, maintaining that it would have shown that he had the
mental
age of a ten-year-old child. This evidence was proffered for the sole purposе of showing that Couch was incapable of forming the requisite intent under OCGA § 16-3-1, which provides that “[a] pеrson shall not be considered or found guilty of a crime
The age referred to in the code section is, of course, biological age. Nothing evidences a legislative intent to refer to “mental age” — if, indeed, suсh a thing could ever be determined.
Because at no time did Couch contend that he was not guilty by reason of insanity, or that he was guilty but mentally ill, the evidence properly was excluded as irrelevant.
3. In his opening argument, Couch’s attorney announced that he would present evidence tо show that Couch lacked the necessary criminal intent to commit the crimes — a reference to the evidence discussed in Division 2. During closing argument the district attorney asked, “[w]here is all this psychiatric testimony they told you you would hear about?” Couch assigns as error the failure to order а mistrial because of the prosecutor’s comment during closing argument. Because Couch’s сounsel initially alluded to such factual material (and bearing in mind the broad latitude of closing argumеnt) the prosecutor’s rhetorical question was not improper comment. See
Conner v. State,
4. Couch сhallenges the composition of the grand jury, claiming that persons under 24 years of age werе not represented adequately in the grand jury pool.
We have consistently held that young persons do not constitute a cognizable class for purpose of a challenge to thе array of a grand jury.
Hunter v. State,
5. The final enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in admitting two tape-recorded statements made by Couch.
Couch contends that he was deeply depressеd at the time of the first statement; that he was but sixteen years old, and had only a seventh grade education; that he had consumed large quantities of alcohol and amphetamines, and had usеd marijuana within the preceding 24 hours; that he recently received local anesthesia for several surgical stitches (he cut his leg while stabbing his victim to death); and that his parents were not present at the time.
The question of voluntary and knowing waiver of rights by a juvenile depends upon an analysis of nine factors, which include age and education; length, time, and method of interrogation; and the understanding of the accused as to the charges against him.
Howe v. State,
Considering all the circumstances surrounding both of the statements, we cannot say that the trial court’s determination of admissibility was clearly erroneous.
Powell v. State, 252
Ga. 297 (
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The crime was committed on February 17,1984. Couch was convicted on June 12,1984. He filed a motion for new trial on June 20, 1984, which was denied on August 3, 1984. He filed a notice of appeal on August 10, 1984. The transcript was filed July 17, 1984, and the appeal docketed in this court on November 6,1984. The case was submitted on December 21, 1984.