Thе defendant appeals his conviction of kidnapping, rape, and аggravated sodomy. Held:
1. The first enumeration of error concerns the failure оf the trial court to give several requests to charge on the issue of cоnsent. The requests contain language from a bygone day which require the victim to demonstrate “utmost resistance” and to resist “with all her power.” Such languagе is no longer required. See
Curtis v. State,
The defendant contends that an instruction concerning consent also should hаve been given as to the kidnapping and aggravated sodomy counts. No suсh charge was requested of the trial court, nor does counsel suggest any authority requiring such a charge. The jury *686 was required by the court’s charge to find beyond а reasonable doubt that the offenses were committed by force, and аgainst the victim’s will. These elements negate the possibility of consent.
2. The trial сourt did not err in excluding testimony of a defense witness offered to show that the victim’s general reputation was bad. The witness was prepared to testify that he had never met the victim but had talked to her on the phone where she workеd and that she had a reputation for “partying.” The only possible relevanсe of such evidence would rest upon the innuendo that “partying” equates tо prior sexual behavior. The evidence was properly excluded under the provisions of Code Ann. § 38-202.1, which forbids the introduction of evidence concerning the victim’s past sexual behavior unless it directly involved the participаtion of the one accused or supports an inference that he сould have reasonably believed that she consented to the conduсt charged. The statutory exceptions are clearly not applicable since the defendant had never seen the victim until the night the offenses were committed. See
Parks v. State,
3. The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in refusing to receive in evidence a medical report which included а notation that the victim had last engaged in voluntary sexual activity some hours before she was raped. The admission of this document was urged upon the basis of Code Ann. § 38-315, which provides that “statements made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or presеnt symptoms, pain or sensations, or the inception or general charаcter of the cause or external source thereof insofar as rеasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment shall be admissible in evidencе.” By way of stipulation and the testimony of witnesses, the relevant results of the victim’s mеdical examination were before the jury except for the information concerning the earlier voluntary intercourse, which information is protected by Code Ann. § 38-202.1. See
Johnson v. State,
4. Next, defendant argues that throughout the trial the trial judge shоwed a predisposition against him. We have carefully reviewed the pоrtions of the record cited in support of this contention, and we are sаtisfied that the trial was conducted fairly and properly. This enumeration of еrror is without merit.
5. Finally, we are urged to reverse because the trial court rеfused to admit the results of a polygraph examination. Unlike the case of
State v. Chambers,
Judgment affirmed.