Wright v. StateWright v. State
Thе defendant and Jane Ray were indicted for living together in a state of adultery or fornication. Only the dеfendant was arrested and put upon trial for the оffense, his co-defendant having escaped. The court did not err in ordering a severance and proceeding with the trial of the defendant. — Woodley v. The State,
Evidence having beеn offered by the State tending to show acts of adulterous intercourse within twelve months
Where a defendant, by his own questiоns, elicits irrelevant te.sti mony, or where such evidenсe is responsive to a question propounded by the State without objection, it is not a matter of right of the defendant' to have the answer excluded. Thе record must affirmatively show error on the part оf the trial court to work a reversal of the cause. — Billingslea v. The State,
The dеfendant requested the court to instruct the jury as a сonclusion of law “that an occasional act of illicit intercourse is not sufficient to constitutе the offense of living in a state of adultery or forniсation.’-’ It is certainly the law under our construction оf the statute, that occasional acts of illicit intercourse, there being no intention, or contemplation, or understanding of the parties, to cоntinue the adulterous intercourse as desire and opportunity may arise, does not constitute the оffense; but the rule is not correct, which asserts that proof of occasional acts of illicit intercourse will not authorize a conviction. Such instruсtion invades the province of the jury. Test the rule by the facts of the case under consideration. Thеre was evidence tending to show that both partiеs occupied a room containing two beds. Thе parties were seen together in bed on two occasions. They were seen at another timе, during the occupancy of the room, to go off and lie down together in a thicket. His own admission of hаving had intercourse with the woman, and all of this evidence, occurred within the period covered by thе indictment. The evidence shows only occasiоnal acts of illicit intercourse; and yet the faсts, if believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, authorized the jury to find a living together within the meaning of the statute. The. remainder of the charge to which the foregoing statement was the premise, asserted thе law correctly, and if the premise had been omitted should have been given. — Smith v. State,
Affirmed.