Royals v. State
Opinion
Julian Royals was indicted, tried by a jury, and convicted of incest and aggravated assault. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to corroborate the prosecutrix’ testimony. Held:
During the course of the trial, the court conducted a Jackson-Denno hearing to determine the admissibility of an oral statement defendant made to Sheriff Bembry that ". . . young girls turned him on and that he had an affair with his daughters.” The trial court found that the [678] statement was freely and voluntarily made and allowed it to be admitted into evidence. We find no error in this ruling. One of the definitions of an "affair” is "an illicit sexual relationship.” Webster’s 3d International Dictionary at 35 (1966). We find no merit in this enumeration.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
250 S.E.2d 34 (Royals v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.