BBCA teenager has been given a life sentence for the murder of a 13-year-old and told he would serve at least eight-and-a-half years behind bars.
The body of Jahziah Coke, who was stabbed in the stomach and chest, was discovered at a house in Oldbury, near Birmingham, by ambulance crews responding to a 999 call on 29 August.
The trial at Wolverhampton Crown Court was told the defendant fled over fences to escape the scene and caught a bus to a friend’s house to play video games.
The teenager had denied murder, claiming the wounds were not deliberate but a jury returned a guilty verdict, by a majority of 10 to two, in April.
Passing sentence on Friday, Mrs Justice Tipples told the defendant that she was sure he had “intended to kill” Jahziah after pushing or moving a knife around his neck.
“When you killed Jahziah he was only 13 and a child with everything in life ahead of him. This was a nasty and violent attack,” she said.
During her sentencing remarks the judge accepted that the weapon used in the killing belonged to Jahziah and was taken from him by his killer at an address in Oldbury, West Midlands, in August.
The teenager cannot be identified after the judge ruled that his welfare outweighed the public interest in naming him.
Emily Clewer, from the Crown Prosecution Service, said: “This is a deeply tragic case where Jahziah Coke lost his life and entire future senselessly to knife violence.”
She said his family had suffered “unimaginable pain and loss” while his killer “will now face the consequences of his actions in ways that will irrevocably change the trajectory of his life”.
During the trial, the defendant told the jury he was left traumatised after grabbing Jahziah’s hands while being threatened with a knife, which he twisted towards the floor during an attempt to calm down an argument about a “missing” quantity of cannabis.
He also told jurors he did not have the knife in his own hands and had dialled 999 to get paramedics, only leaving the property once he believed Jahziah was dead.
The judge accepted that there was no premeditation but ruled that the defendant was not acting in self-defence and that his actions were “completely out of proportion” to the possible threat he faced.
