*1 530 0 July 3, 199 Decided Cert, applied — July

Rehearing 25, for. 1990 denied appellant. Jr., Chew, for Lamberth, S. Walter &Chew Attorney, Becraft, Assistant Parks, Barbara A. R. John District Attorney, appellee. for District THE STATE. STANCIL v. A90A0592. (396 299) SE2d Judge. Beasley, aggravated appeals of two counts for his convictions Defendant (a),

sodomy, molestation, two child § and counts of OCGA 16-6-2 (a), aged involving daughters, 9. 7 and his § 16-6-4 for acts OCGA refuse to it for the court to was error 1. Defendant first contends gave of entire statement he the the introduction into evidence allow by police. portions court and intro- In relevant the deemed to the by children, State, who that the lived defendant related duced the yank off he showered and time, his towel after him at the with that ing would attempt- him, find in bed with them he awoke times to numerous penis. his to caress containing portions sought statements to introduce Defendant boyfriend by implicating as a his ex-wife’s to him the children made of the children. molester portions relevant, not de- court ruled that these were When the objected 24-3-38, § that if the State on basis of OCGA fendant the portions, have the whole statement “we’re entitled to introduced heard before jury.

the ...” past showing relevance, of a child's sexual Absent a of evidence by history, including persons accused, than is other acts committed (349 (2) 6) App. State, SE2d v. 180 312 inadmissible. Ga. Chastain (354 421) (1987). (1986), Compare Hall v. 54, 257 55 SE2d aff’d Ga. (_SE2d_) (1990). App. is State, This true whether 196 Ga. 523 In or in admission otherwise. the evidence is contained this instance it defendant’s hearsay. disability being had of based on the added general grounds. The evidence is suf- 2. Defendant also raises the beyond fact a trier of to ficient a doubt to enable rational reasonable supra; Chastain, Jackson v. on see also convict defendant each count. 560) (1979). (99 Virginia, 2781, LE2d U. S. 61 443 307 SC spe- Judgment Pope, J., Deen, J., concurs. concurs P. affirmed. cially. concurring Judge, specially. Pope, distinguish opinion majority Hall v. I I in but write to concur the

531 (— SE2d_) (1990) App. present State, 196 Ga. 523 from the case. Hall, In this court that held the defendant to was entitled introduce prior child, of evidence molestations of the not to show the victim’s nonchastity reputation preoccupation sex, for or her with but rather possible by to show other causes of victim behavior the that was syndrome.” ascribed to the “child sexual abuse accommodation In the present hearsay sought proffered case, the to be not was for admitted *2 purpose by hearsay the limited allowed Hall. The at evidence issue clearly general by majority falls the within rule set out the that evi- past history, including by of a dence child’s sexual acts committed people ing maining parts accused, other than the is irrelevant and inadmissible. Invok- only § defendant,

OCGA 24-3-38 does not avail the because re- by anof admission or conversation used the State that (5) (46 State, are relevant are admissible. Brown v. 119 572 SE Ga. 833) (1904). July 12, 1990. Decided Jerry Gray, appellant. C. for Timothy Attorney, Jeffrey Madison, G. Morrow, District G. As- Attorney, appellee.

sistant District for PYE

A90A0863. v. THE STATE. (396 250) SE2d Presiding Judge. Banke, appellant robbery The was convicted of armed in connection with money his admitted theft of a from convenience The two store. store employees duty robbery posi- who had been on when the occurred tively appellant perpetrator, testifying identified the the as that he pistol taking money had atop held a on them while the from a desk counting appellant’s where one of them had been it. The sister was robbery also indicted for armed in connection the with incident but against appellant being testified the at trial in return for allowed to plead guilty robbery by Testify- to the lesser offense of intimidation. ing appellant acknowledged behalf, on his own the he that had “grabbed money” walked into the store and the but denied that he pistol any type weapon. had been armed with a or other of Held: light evidence, 1. The construed in the most favorable to the ver- amply dict, was to sufficient a enable rational trier of to find fact the appellant guilty robbery beyond of armed a reasonable doubt. See generally 560) (1979). Virginia, (99 Jackson v. 2781, U. 443 S. 307 SC 61 LE2d