☢ test - Í

State could show the extent of her injuries as required under OCGA § 40-6-394. There was no error. See id. (videotape was relevant and admissible in that it illustrated the extent of a victim’s injuries).” Reversed on another issue, 283 Ga. 501, 661 S.E.2d 525 (May 19, 2008). Simmons v. State, 282 Ga. 183, 646 S.E.2d 55 (June 4, 2007). “Simmons … contends that the trial court erred by admitting certain pictures of [victim] Norby’s body at the scene of the crime, including a picture that showed ants crawling on the body. The trial court, however, did not err by admitting the pictures of Norby’s body in this case, as all of the pictures were ‘relevant and material to the identity of the victim, the location of the victim’s body, the location of certain physical evidence at the scene, and the location and nature of the victim’s wounds.’ (Citation omitted.) Smith v. State, 258 Ga. 179, 180(2) (366 S.E.2d 687) (1988). See also Jenkins v. State, 270 Ga. 607(3) (512 S.E.2d 269) (1999).” Accord, Johnson v. State , 289 Ga. 498, 713 S.E.2d 376 (July 5, 2011) (“close-up crime scene photograph of the victim that showed aspirated blood on his face” properly admitted, citing Simmons ). Stinski v. State, 281 Ga. 783, 642 S.E.2d 1 (February 2, 2007). Photos showing murder victim’s injuries were admissible “despite Stinski’s contention that the same relevant matters could possible be proven through testimony rather than through photographs because we recognize that photographs are inherently more persuasive regarding the existence of the things they depict than testimony regarding those same things.” Thomas v. State, 281 Ga. 550, 640 S.E.2d 255 (January 22, 2007). “A post-autopsy photograph of a victim’s body ‘is only admissible to show a material fact that became apparent solely because of the autopsy.’ McClure v. State, 278 Ga. 411, 412 (603 S.E.2d 224) (2004). ‘Thus, for example, when a fatal internal injury is not revealed until an autopsy is performed, a post-autopsy photograph is admissible in order to assist the jury’s understanding of the circumstances surrounding the victim’s death.’ In the present case, the post-autopsy photographs were relevant to assist the jury in understanding the internal injuries suffered by the victim and to understand the cause of death. The trial court thus did not err in admitting the photographs. Id.” Internal injuries here included torn brain and lacerated liver. Accord, Lyons v. State , 282 Ga. 588, 652 S.E.2d 525 (October 29, 2007); Bostic v. State , 284 Ga. 864, 672 S.E.2d 630 (January 26, 2009); Wesley v. State , 286 Ga. 355, 689 S.E.2d 280 (January 25, 2010); Bunnell v. State , 292 Ga. 253, 735 S.E.2d 281 (January 7, 2013) (post-autopsy photographs were admissible in murder prosecution where “the medical examiner testified that she could see the nature and extent of the injuries to the head only after she retracted the scalp to expose the multiple fractures to the skull and internal bleeding.”). McRae v. State, 282 Ga.App. 852, 640 S.E.2d 323 (November 21, 2006). “‘ Incidental inclusion of medical apparatus in an emergency treatment room where a victim is being treated because of wounds inflicted by his assailant is not sufficient reason to exclude an otherwise relevant photograph.’ Graham v. State, 175 Ga.App. 411, 413(3) (333 S.E.2d 664) (1985). See also Nassar v. State, 253 Ga. 35(2) (315 S.E.2d 903) (1984). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the photographs depicting the victim’s wounds were admissible and did not err in denying McRae’s motion for new trial.” Distinguishing Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 867(5) (302 S.E.2d 347) (1983) (“[a] photograph which depicts the victim after autopsy incisions are made or after the state of the body is changed by authorities or the pathologist will not be admissible unless necessary to show some material fact which becomes apparent only because of the autopsy.”). Moody v. State, 279 Ga.App. 457, 631 S.E.2d 485 (May 17, 2006). No error in admitting photos of victim’s injuries morning after her attack, then additional photos taken two days later, “to show how the injuries manifested themselves over time.” Smith v. State, 280 Ga. 490, 629 S.E.2d 816 (May 8, 2006). “Photographs showing the extent and nature of the victim’s wounds are material and relevant. Moody v. State, 277 Ga. 676, 680(5) (594 S.E.2d 350) (2004). This is not altered by the fact that the cause of death may not be in dispute. Leggett v. State, 256 Ga. 274(3) (347 S.E.2d 580) (1986).” Accord, Bradley v. State , 281 Ga. 173, 637 S.E.2d 19 (October 30, 2006); Roberts v. State , 282 Ga. 548, 651 S.E.2d 689 (October 9, 2007); Hendrix v. State , 284 Ga. 420, 667 S.E.2d 597 (October 6, 2008); Taylor v. State , 304 Ga.App. 573, 696 S.E.2d 498 (June 24, 2010); Smith v. State , 319 Ga.App. 164, 735 S.E.2d 153 (November 30, 2012). Smith v. State, 279 Ga.App. 211, 630 S.E.2d 833 (May 5, 2006). “Smith contends that the trial court erred when it admitted three photographs of Cross’s bullet wound to the head and two photographs of Smith’s handgun, arguing that the photographs were repetitive and cumulative and therefore their probative value was outweighed by their unfair prejudicial impact on Smith. We disagree. The admission of photographic evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. Taylor