☢ test - Í

and Halbach at trial, as well as to demonstrate their condition shortly before the collision.” Stewart v. State, 286 Ga. 669, 690 S.E.2d 811 (March 15, 2010). At defendant’s murder trial, no error in admission of victim photos. 1. Photos were not unduly prejudicial “because they included medical devices such as forceps, rulers, and headrests.” “The instrumentation appellant complains about, namely forceps holding a ruler next to the head wounds and headrests propping up the victims' heads were merely used to show the extent of the injuries, which is permissible. Sheppard v. State, 285 Ga. 36(3) (673 S.E.2d 852) (2009).” Accord, Edwards v. State , 293 Ga. 612, 748 S.E.2d 870 (September 23, 2013). 2. “ Likewise, a photograph of the victim's shaved head is merely a means to show the extent of injury and is also permissible. Brown v. State, 270 Ga. 601(6) (512 S.E.2d 260) (1999).” 3. “As for the duct tape found on Walthour's body, there was witness testimony that Walthour's assailants used duct tape to bind his hands and cover his eyes, and yellow cord about his feet; therefore, any photographs showing those materials were part of the res gestae of the crime and admissible. See Williams v. State, 282 Ga. 561(3) (651 S.E.2d 674) (2007) ( photographs of the victim as found are admissible ).” Pierce v. State, 286 Ga. 194, 686 S.E.2d 656 (November 23, 2009). At defendant’s murder trial, photos of the infant victim were properly admitted. “[Defendant] asserts that because the baby's injuries were all internal, the photos could not assist the jury by showing the location and nature of his injuries. Pierce's argument is based on a false premise. The fact that [victim] Donte did not have external injuries bolstered the State's argument that he died from shaken baby syndrome rather than some other cause. Accordingly, the photos could assist the jury in determining the nature and location of Donte's injuries.” Overton v. State, 295 Ga.App. 223, 671 S.E.2d 507 (November 26, 2008). 1. In defendants’ RICO prosecution, post- autopsy photographs of murder victims were improperly admitted, but harmless error in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt. “[T]he State contends the autopsy photographs were admissible to show the extent of their wounds and the nature of their death,” but “[n]o defendant in this case was charged with murder. No issues of self-defense, or accident were raised by any defendant. In fact, the defendants were willing to stipulate that the two men were killed and their bodies burned to conceal the crime.” While the State is generally entitled to present relevant evidence regardless of a defendant’s offer to stipulate to facts, post-autopsy photos are only admissible “to show some material fact which becomes apparent only because of the autopsy,” Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 866(5) (302 S.E.2d 347) (1983). No such necessity was shown here. 2. No abuse of discretion in admitting 24 pre-autopsy photographs of murder victims. Boyd v. State, 284 Ga. 46, 663 S.E.2d 218 (June 30, 2008). “Conceding the general rule that it is not error to admit a photograph of the victim while in life, Ledford v. State, 264 Ga. 60(14) (439 S.E.2d 917) (1994), Boyd contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce a photograph of Morgan with his family. Where, as here, no photograph of the victim alone is available, we have upheld the admission of a photograph of the victim with others. See Sizemore v. State, 251 Ga. 867(2) (310 S.E.2d 227) (1984) (victim holding an infant); Mincey v. State, 251 Ga. 255(11) (304 S.E.2d 882) (1983) (victim with her two children). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the photograph at issue. As the sole purpose of introducing a photograph of the victim in life is to establish the victim’s identity, Cornell v. State, 277 Ga. 228(4) (587 S.E.2d 652) (2003), however, we take this opportunity to emphasize that every effort should be made to proffer a photograph of the victim alone.” Accord, Haynes v. State , 287 Ga. 202, 695 S.E.2d 219 (May 17, 2010) (photos of murder victim alone, and victim with wife, admitted simultaneously, nor error). Comment: with the ability to scan and manipulate photographs by computer readily available anywhere, it should never be necessary to introduce a photograph of a victim with others. Smith v. State, 291 Ga.App. 545, 662 S.E.2d 323 (May 16, 2008). No error in admitting photograph of 86-year old rape victim’s “vagina and bloody underwear … which showed that the victim was bleeding the day after her attack. … As argued by the State, the photograph was relevant to show that the victim was raped and to refute Smith’s contention that her injuries were consistent with being kicked.” Dunagan v. State, 286 Ga.App. 668, 649 S.E.2d 765 (July 3, 2007). Not photographs, but personal appearance by injured victim was within trial court’s discretion, although her brain injuries apparently rendered her unable to testify. No abuse of discretion at defendant’s trial for reckless driving and serious injury by vehicle where trial court allowed victim, who was rendered paraplegic and brain injured by collision, to appear before jury. “‘Any evidence is relevant which logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact which is at issue in the case, and every act or circumstance serving to elucidate or to throw light upon a material issue or issues is relevant.’ (Citation omitted.) Dudley v. State, 204 Ga.App. 327(2) (419 S.E.2d 138) (1992). Here, the court briefly introduced the victim to the jury so that the