“Ms. Sterniek: Objection. “The [cjourt: Sustained. “Mr. St. Onge: Nothing further.” The defendant argues that because the state implied during the presentation of its case that the victim developed sexually transmitted diseases as a result of her contact with defendant, he should have been allowed to introduce evidence that he was free of these diseases. For support, defendant relies on two cases from Georgia, where an intermediate appellate court ruled that a defendant must be given an opportunity to present evidence of being disease-free in a situation such as this one in which medical testimony revealed that the victim contracted a sexually transmitted disease after she had sexual contact with the defendant. See Chambers v. State, 205 Ga.App. 78, 421 S.E.2d 326, 328-29 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Reece v. State, 192 Ga.App. 14, 383 S.E.2d
holding that trial court erred by not allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence of prior dealings with the defendant holding that the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence that the defendant did not have the sexually transmitted disease that the victim contracted holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that the trial court in a sexual assault case erred by refusing to allow evidence of prior testimony by the complainant in an unrelated rape prosecution holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge