☢ test - Í

was able to identify. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted a single, post-autopsy photograph. See Stewart v. State, 286 Ga. 669, 670(3) (690 S.E.2d 811) (2010) (‘The admission of photographic evidence is at the discretion of the trial court.’ (Citations omitted)).” Edwards v. State, 293 Ga. 612, 748 S.E.2d 870 (September 23, 2013). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no error in admitting photographs of victims. 1. Photos of newborn infant victim were properly admitted “to show that the baby was, in fact, born alive.” 2. “To the extent that Edwards claims that some of the photographs ought not have been admitted because they show [victim] with an intravenous tube in her arm, he is wrong. A photograph of a victim is not rendered inadmissible by its depiction of medical efforts to save the life of the victim. See Rouse v. State , 275 Ga. 605, 608(7), 571 S.E.2d 353 (2002).” Accord, Browner v. State , 296 Ga. 138, 765 S.E.2d 348 (November 3, 2014) (breathing apparatus on murder victim’s face didn’t require exclusion of photo). Pressley v. State, 322 Ga.App. 243, 744 S.E.2d 439 (June 13, 2013). Conviction for child cruelty, second degree, affirmed; trial court properly admitted photographs showing infant victim’s permanent injuries. “Pressley's objection at trial went not to the photographs' accuracy, but rather to their capacity to inflame the jury against him. As we held in Stokes v. State, 204 Ga.App. 586, 420 S.E.2d 84 (1992), however, ‘[p]hotographs showing the extent of injuries suffered by the victim of the alleged criminal act are relevant at the trial of the defendant, and are admissible despite allegations that they may inflame and prejudice the jury.’ (Citations omitted.) Id. at 586(1), 420 S.E.2d 84.” Philpot v. State, 311 Ga.App. 486, 716 S.E.2d 551 (August 24, 2011). Aggravated assault and aggravated battery convictions affirmed; “contrary to Philpot's assertion, the two photographs of the victim's bandaged face and neck were material and relevant to show the extent and severity of the injuries that she suffered, and the trial court thus was well within its discretion in deciding to admit them. [fn] See Stokes v. State, 204 Ga.App. 586, 586–587(1) (420 S.E.2d 84) (1992). See also Lacey v. State, 288 Ga. 341, 345(4)(b) (703 S.E.2d 617) (2010) (photographs of victim in hospital after attack were directly relevant and admissible in aggravated assault trial); Brown v. State, 258 Ga.App. 78, 81(3) (573 S.E.2d 110) (2002) (evidence regarding the effects of the injury on the victim were relevant in aggravated assault trial).” Brown v. State, 310 Ga.App. 285, 712 S.E.2d 521 (June 9, 2011). Vehicular homicide conviction affirmed; no error in admitting pre-autopsy photos of victim. “The photographs showed the deceased victim at the scene of the accident sitting in the passenger seat of the car, being removed from a disaster bag at the morgue, and lying on a table in the morgue. These pre-autopsy photographs were admissible to depict the nature and extent of the fatal injuries suffered by the victim in the accident. Generally, pre-autopsy photographs are admissible to show the nature and extent of a victim's injuries, even if they are duplicative and may inflame the jury, and even if the cause of death is not in dispute. Smith v. State, 280 Ga. 490, 492 (629 S.E.2d 816) (2006). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to object.” Accord, Johnson v. State , 292 Ga. 856, 742 S.E.2d 460 (April 29, 2013); Browner v. State , 296 Ga. 138, 765 S.E.2d 348 (November 3, 2014); Dailey v. State , 297 Ga. 442, 774 S.E.2d 672 (June 29, 2015) (autopsy photos not inadmissible merely because cause of death wasn’t disputed). Johnson v. State, 289 Ga. 106, 709 S.E.2d 768 (April 18, 2011). Malice murder conviction affirmed; no error in admitting eight pre-autopsy photos of victim. “The photographs were relevant to the issue of whether the State proved that the shooting of the victim twice in the head was caused by Johnson with malice aforethought. Bradley v. State, 281 Ga. 173, 174(2) (637 S.E.2d 19) (2006). Moreover, some ‘of the photographs showed gunpowder stippling on the victim['s] skin.... Each of the photographs was relevant to some point of the forensic pathologist's testimony. [Cit.]’ Conway v. State, 281 Ga. 685, 691(5) (642 S.E.2d 673) (2007). None of the photographs shows any changes in the state of the body by authorities or the pathologist sufficient to bring this case within the stricter rule of admissibility announced in Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 867(5) (302 S.E.2d 347) (1983). Shaving of the victim's hair around the wounds ‘cannot be equated with post-mortem surgical procedures. ’ Bell v. State, 257 Ga. 560, 561(3) (361 S.E.2d 488) (1987). See also Stewart v. State, supra at 671(3); Brown v. State, 270 Ga. 601, 604(6) (512 S.E.2d 260) (1999). ‘The mere fact that metal probes could be seen in some of the photographs did not render them inadmissible. The probes simply illustrated the angle and path of the victim's wounds.’ Williams v. State, 265 Ga. 681, 683(5) (461 S.E.2d 530) (1995). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the pre-incision autopsy photographs into evidence.” Taylor v. State, 304 Ga.App. 573, 696 S.E.2d 498 (June 24, 2010). Defendant’s convictions for first degree vehicular homicide affirmed; no error in admitting photos of victims shortly before the accident. “In Georgia …’in life’ photographs ‘are admissible for comparison with photographs of the victim after death to prove the identity of the victim.’ Cornell v. State, 277 Ga. 228, 230(4), 587 S.E.2d 652 (2003). The photograph taken at the party was admissible to identify Stephens