☢ test - Í

were material inasmuch as “the cause of the victim’s death and the circumstances surrounding her injuries were the principal dispute at trial.” 2. Photos of victim in the hospital “were relevant to show the nature and extent of the victim’s injuries, and they are not especially gory or gruesome. See Moss v. State , 298 Ga. 613, 617-618 (783 S.E.2d 652) (2016) (discussing the admissibility under OCGA § 24-4-403 of pre-incision autopsy photos of a murder victim, based on Eleventh Circuit case law).” 3. Counsel was deficient for failing to object to three photos which merely showed medical equipment at the hospital, and a doll lying in the victim’s crib, all of which were irrelevant. No prejudice shown from their admission, however, as the State made no effort to use them or refer to them in closing argument, and the evidence against defendant was strong. Churchill v. State, 298 Ga. 471, 782 S.E.2d 5 (January 19, 2016). Felony murder conviction affirmed; under pre-2013 Evidence Code, trial court properly admitted autopsy photos of the infant victim “to show prior difficulties between Churchill and [victim] Jada, and this fact only became apparent as a result of the autopsy.” The photos showed that victim had broken ribs that weren’t consistent with defendant’s claim that he gave the child CPR when she stopped breathing. “See Stokes v. State, 289 Ga. 702, 706(4) (715 S.E.2d 81) (2011) (Photographs depicting baby’s prior healing rib fracture were admissible where they ‘served as part of the basis of the medical expert’s opinion regarding the mechanism of death and [were] relevant to prior difficulty testimony showing that [the defendant] had improperly squeezed the baby in the past’).” Simpson v. State, 298 Ga. 314, 781 S.E.2d 762 (January 19, 2016). Murder and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly admitted photos of the victm’s “body at the scene of the crime, and others show the body just before the autopsy. Those crime-scene and pre-autopsy photographs were properly admitted into evidence ‘to show the nature and extent of the wounds and the location of physical evidence at the scene, as well as to assist the testimony of the medical examiner.’ Leslie v. State, 292 Ga. 368, 372(5), 738 S.E.2d 42 (2013). See also Wilcher v. State, 291 Ga. 613, 614(2), 732 S.E.2d 81 (2012).” Spears v. State, 296 Ga. 598, 769 S.E.2d 337 (February 16, 2015). Capital murder and related convictions affirmed; no error in admission of post-autopsy photo showing “a hematoma below the surfacr of the scalp that was not visible prior to the autopsy. … Contrary to Spears's argument, it is irrelevant that the incision that revealed the injury below the scalp passed through a bruise visible on the surface of the scalp, because the photograph of the injury below the scalp was necessary to show the full extent of the victim's head injury.” Accord, Simpson (January 19, 2016), above (six post- autopsy photos of victim’s skull properly admitted to show “different injuries that were identified only upon examining the exposed skull.”). McNear v. State, 326 Ga.App. 32, 755 S.E.2d 844 (March 6, 2014). Conviction for voluntary manslaughter affirmed; no error in admitting multiple autopsy photos which showed different aspects of victim’s injuries. Long v. State, 324 Ga.App. 882, 752 S.E.2d 54 (November 20, 2013). False imprisonment and related convictions affirmed; no error in admitting photos showing injuries to similar transaction victim. “Trial counsel objected on the ground that the pictures were inflammatory and demonstrated injuries for an aggravated battery charge for which Long was acquitted. The photographs show that the victim had lacerations on her face and a black eye. But the aggravated battery charge for which Long was acquitted alleged that he broke the victim's tooth, the victim did not testify about losing her tooth, and the photographs do not show her teeth. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of the photographs. See Arrington v. State, 286 Ga. 335, 343–343(13)(b), 687 S.E.2d 438 (2009) (finding no error in trial court's admission of photograph of similar transaction victim's dead body); Williams v. State, 269 Ga.App. 512, 513– 514(2), 604 S.E.2d 592 (2004) (no error in admission of photographs showing injuries received by victim in similar transaction).” McKibbins v. State, 293 Ga. 843, 750 S.E.2d 314 (October 21, 2013). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no error in admitting pre- and pst-autopsy photos of the dismembered victim. “No doubt, those photographs are gruesome, but as we have explained, ‘[a] photograph which shows mutilation of a victim resulting from the crime against him may, however gruesome, have relevance to the trial of his alleged assailant.’ Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 867(5) (302 S.E.2d 34) (1983).” “The gruesome nature of the photographs notwithstanding, a defendant cannot complain about photographs that simply ‘portray the havoc wreaked by [his] own hand.’ Null v. State, 261 Ga. 180, 181(4) (402 S.E.2d 721) (1991) (noting also that “murder is a gory business” ) (citations and punctuation omitted).” Single post-autopsy photo showed cerebral bruising that was apparent only upon autopsy. “This evidence corroborated testimony that Robbins was beaten before his death, and it was the only injury suffered by Robbins prior to his death that the medical examiner