In re C. R.

Supreme Court of Georgia

In re C. R.

442 S.E.2d 737, 264 Ga. 215, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 1432, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 389

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 25, 1994

DocketS94A0132

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 442 S.E.2d 737 (In re C. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re C. R., 442 S.E.2d 737, 264 Ga. 215, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 1432, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 389 (Ga. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Hunstein, Justice.

Appellant, a juvenile at the time of the incident, is charged with murdering his father by shooting him twice with a shotgun. Subsequent to our earlier decision involving this juvenile, see In re C. R., 263 Ga. 155 (430 SE2d 3) (1993), the juvenile court conducted a transfer hearing and entered an order transferring the case to superior court for prosecution. At issue in this appeal is whether the statutory requirement imposed by OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) (3) (C)¹ was met. The juvenile court found that because of the heinous nature of the offense the community’s interest in treating appellant as an adult outweighed appellant’s interest in being treated as a juvenile. We conclude that this finding was sufficient to warrant the transfer. State v. M. M., 259 Ga. 637 (3) (386 SE2d 35) (1989). Accord In the Interest of J. H., 260 Ga. 447 (1) (396 SE2d 885) (1990). Thus, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the case. OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) (3).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hunstein, Justice.

Appellant, a juvenile at the time of the incident, is charged with murdering his father by shooting him twice with a shotgun. Subsequent to our earlier decision involving this juvenile, see In re C. R., 263 Ga. 155 (430 SE2d 3) (1993), the juvenile court conducted a transfer hearing and entered an order transferring the case to superior court for prosecution. At issue in this appeal is whether the statutory requirement imposed by OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) (3) (C)¹ was met. The juvenile court found that because of the heinous nature of the offense the community’s interest in treating appellant as an adult outweighed appellant’s interest in being treated as a juvenile. We conclude that this finding was sufficient to warrant the transfer. State v. M. M., 259 Ga. 637 (3) (386 SE2d 35) (1989). Accord In the Interest of J. H., 260 Ga. 447 (1) (396 SE2d 885) (1990). Thus, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the case. OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) (3).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 S.E.2d 737, 264 Ga. 215, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 1432, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-c-r-ga-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack