A jury found David Scott guilty of wearing a hood with intent to conceal one’s identity, carrying a weapon on school property, terroristic threats, aggravated assault upon a school official, aggravated *730 battery upon a school official, armed robbery, criminal attempt — theft by taking a motor vehicle, and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. Scott appeals his convictions, and we affirm.
1. In his first enumeration of error, Scott contends the trial court erred in finding that the State’s explanation for striking juror no. 30 was racially neutral. According to Scott, the State struck juror no. 30, a black female, yet did not strike juror no. 28, a similarly situated white female, in violation of
Batson v. Kentucky,
“The trial court’s decision rests largely upon assessment of the prosecutor’s state of mind and credibility; it therefore lies peculiarly within a trial judge’s province. The trial court’s factual findings must be given great deference and may be disregarded only if clearly erroneous.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Moak v. State,
While Scott discusses a number of potential jurors in his brief, his enumeration of error states that he is challenging only the State’s strike of juror no. 30 from the venire. Hence, we need address only Scott’s arguments relating to this particular venireperson.
Scott is a black male who was 19 years old at the time of the alleged offense and his trial. The State’s stated reason for striking juror no. 30, who was black, was that she had a twenty-year-old child, similar in age to Scott, and three other children, ages sixteen, twelve and ten. According to the prosecutor, “I was concerned that that particular juror would be sympathetic. I noted that this juror was nice but despite that fact I felt that she would not be a good juror in this case because of the children that she had that were close in age.” Scott contends this explanation is not racially neutral because juror no. 28, who was white, had a 17-year-old child, her demographic information was virtually identical to juror no. 30, and she was not struck by the State.
It is clear that a prospective juror’s age or the ages of the prospective juror’s children can justify the State’s exercise of a peremptory strike.
Whatley,
supra at 570;
Ledford v. State,
2. In his second enumeration of error, Scott asserts the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on his sole defense of misfortune or accident. Scott admits that he did not request such a charge, but contends that the court should have given this charge sua sponte because his sole defense as to the aggravated battery charge was that the victim was cut or stabbed as a result of misfortune or accident.
The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to support the verdict, shows as follows. Scott attacked Beverly Croom, a school principal, as she exited the school. Brandishing a butcher’s knife, Scott told Croom he would kill her if she did not let him in the locked building. Croom tried to move away from Scott, but Scott pulled the knife back and stabbed her from her left side across to the center of her stomach. Scott admitted Croom was trying to run from him when he grabbed her and pulled her back. He further admitted that he intentionally was on school property with the knife, that he tried to steal Croom’s car, and that he had the knife in his hand while he tried to get Croom’s car keys. However, Scott argues that Croom was stabbed by accident as she tried to run and he pulled her back.
“Every person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his conduct, particularly if that conduct be unlawful and dangerous to the safety or lives of others.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Helton v. State,
Since Croom was stabbed with the knife Scott used to place her in reasonable apprehension of immediate violent injury, even if the stabbing was unintentional, the offense was aggravated assault, and a charge on accident was not warranted. Grude, supra. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to sua sponte give a jury charge on misfortune or accident.
3. In his final enumeration, Scott asserts there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the corroboration requirement of the terroristic threats statute. OCGA § 16-11-37 (a). This contention is not supported by the record.
“As in rape cases, the quantum of corroboration need not in itself be sufficient to convict, but need only be that amount of independent evidence which tends to prove that the incident occurred as alleged. [Cit.] Slight circumstances may be sufficient for corroboration and the question of corroboration is one solely for the jury. If there is any evidence of corroboration, this court will not go behind the jury verdict and pass on its probative value. [Cit.]”
Moss v. State,
In the present case, Croom testified that Scott told her he would kill her if she did not let him into the building. While Scott denied making this threat, “[Croom’s] testimony in this regard was sufficiently corroborated by the evidence concerning the events which transpired immediately before and after [Scott] made the asserted threats.”
Steele v. State,
Judgment affirmed.