Appellant was a minor, 16 years of age, when he was indicted, along with Robert Hartwell and Boysie Thomas, by a Chatham County grand jury for the armed robbery of J. W. Sirmants and the murder of Anthony Johnson. He received a separate trial from his coindictees and was found guilty of both offenses by a jury. Consecutive life sentences were imposеd for the two crimes. This appeal followed after the trial court overruled appellant’s motion for a new trial. We find no merit in the enumerations of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
These charges grew out of the armed robbery of a liquor store on Bull Street in Savannah by three armed males. During the robbery, an еmployee, Anthony Johnson, was shot and killed and another employee, J. W. Sirmants was seriously wounded. A third person, John M. Poythress, was shot at by one of the robbers, but the bullet missed him. The store receipts were taken, in addition to personal money of J. W. Sirmants, and a .38 caliber pistol which belonged to John M. Poythress.
Approximately two weeks after the robberies and homicide occurred, appellant’s mother learned that an arrest warrant had been issued for her son. She took him to the рolice station where appellant was received into *492 custody and was read a statement of his Miranda rights in the presence of his mother. Both appellant and his mother signed statements acknowledging that each of them understood those rights. At that time, according to the state’s evidence, appellant made an oral statement to the officers in which he admitted participating in the robberies and naming one of the other co-indictees, "Hotrod” (Robert Hartwеll), as the person who had done all of the shooting at the store.
Appellant’s first enumeration of error concerns the voluntariness of the alleged orаl confession made by appellant. There was a Jackson-Denno hearing at the trial on this issue. At that hearing, the state’s evidence showed that Miranda warnings hаd been given and that appellant’s statement was voluntary. However, both appellant and his mother testified that appellant did not confess to the offiсers.
Appellant also urges that because he was a juvenile at the time of his arrest, he could not be interrogated at the police station. He reliеs on
Daniels v. State,
The sеcond enumeration of error addresses the admission into evidence, after a Jackson-Denno hearing, of another incriminating statement. The policе officer questioned appellant again on the day of his arrest, sometime after he made the alleged statement considered *493 in the first enumeration оf error. This questioning also took place in the presence of his mother. Two written statements of appellant’s co-indictee Thomas were read by thе officer to appellant. The officer testified that appellant agreed with most of both statements but that he made some corrections in both statеments about the identity of the person who had done the actual shooting. These statements and appellant’s responses were related to the jury. Apрellant complains that the admission of the statements of the co-indictee denied appellant of his right of confrontation. Appellant also argues that because he had the right to remain silent, the statements of his coindictee were not probative of appellant’s guilt.
Appellant’s argument ignores the fundamental nature of this evidence. By affirmatively agreeing with the statements of the co-indictee and correcting them by adding information to the statements, the stаtements became appellant’s statements. When appellant corrected and adopted these statements, they became admissible agаinst him.
Hill v. State,
Enumeration of error No. 4 complains that the trial court failed to give a specific charge on voluntariness of confessions requested by the defense at trial. The trial judge declined to give it, but instead, charged extensively on the legal necessity for the jury to find first that the confessions were voluntary before the confessions could be considered by the jury. The charge given is fair and complete, and "where the charge given substantially covers the аpplicable principles, failure to give requested instructions in the exact language requested is not error.”
Leutner v. State,
Enumeration of error No. 5 concerns the аdmission into evidence of one of the police officer’s testimony. This officer refreshed his recollection of the interviews with
*494
appellant from a police report but he testified from his independent recollection of the narrated events. See Code Ann. § 38-1707. This is not a case in which the officer had no indеpendent knowledge or recollection of the events and, therefore, his testimony was not inadmissible hearsay. See e.g.,
Calhoun v. Chappell,
Enumerations of error 7, 8, 9, and 10 concern related problems of instructions given to the jury and the issue of lesser included offenses involved in this case. Appellant was indicted for the malice murder of Mr. Jоhnson and the armed robbery of Mr. Sirmants. He was convicted of felony-murder and armed robbery. As in
Burke v. State,
Enumerations of error 6 and 11 complain of the two cоnsecutive life sentences given to appellant. Because we have rejected appellant’s contention that these two convictions for murder and armed robbery cannot both be approved in this case, we also reject the notion that the two life sentences cannot be affirmed. However, appellant makes the additional argument that the imposition of two consecutive life sentences on a 16-year-old felon constitutes cruel аnd unusual punishment. See Code Ann. § 2-109 and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The answer to this contention was provided by the General Assembly’s statutory decision to treat аll persons over the age of 13 who are convicted of capital felonies in the same manner. The sentences received by appellant аre authorized by law and do not offend the constitutional provisions urged by appellant. See Carrindine v. Ricketts, supra, for a discussion of the *495 treatment of non-capital felons under the age of 17 in Geоrgia.
The last enumeration of error is the general grounds of the motion for new trial. We hold there is sufficient evidence to support the convictions and this enumeration is without merit.
See Ridley v. State,
Judgment affirmed.