☢ test - Í

v. State, 271 Ga. 629, 630(2), 523 S.E.2d 322 (1999). One of the photographs of Cross showed his entire head and face, and the other two were closeup shots depicting the entry and exit wound in his head. Likewise, one of the photographs of the weapon was from a distance, illustrating the area in which it was found, and the other was a closeup. These photographs were not cumulative, as they presented the evidence from different distances and vantage points in order to accurately depict the nature and location of Cross’s wound and the location of the weapon when it was found. Nonetheless, ‘[p]hotographs which are material and relevant to any issue are admissible even though they may be duplicative and inflame the jury. ’ Goss v. State, 255 Ga. 678, 680(1), 341 S.E.2d 448 (1986). Cross’s injuries and the weapon used to inflict them were obviously relevant to the charges against Smith, and the trial court properly admitted these photographs into evidence. Goss, 255 Ga. at 680(1), 341 S.E.2d 448.” Massey v. State, 278 Ga.App. 303, 628 S.E.2d 706 (March 17, 2006). “‘“A photograph which shows mutilation of a victim resulting from the crime against [her] may, however gruesome, have relevance to the trial of [her] alleged assailant.” [Cits.]’ Lewis v. State, 180 Ga.App. 369, 370(2) (349 S.E.2d 257) (1986). Massey was charged with aggravated battery ‘with a certain broom,’ and with his ‘hands and feet.’ The photographs were clearly relevant to confirm the type of injury inflicted on the victim, including the sneaker print on her face.” Wood v. State, 279 Ga. 667, 620 S.E.2d 348 (September 26, 2005). “The pre-autopsy photographs that illustrated the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the victim due to chronic neglect were admissible. See Dean v. State, 273 Ga. 806(2), 546 S.E.2d 499 (2001). The fact that the ulcers ‘oozed’ when touched by the medical examiner simply depicts their egregious nature.” Accord, Thomason v. State , 281 Ga. 429, 637 S.E.2d 639 (November 6, 2006) (photos showed “location, nature and extent of the victim’s multiple gunshot wounds.”); Alvelo v. State , 290 Ga. 609, 724 S.E.2d 377 (February 27, 2012). McClure v. State, 273 Ga.App. 751, 615 S.E.2d 856 (June 20, 2005). Trial court properly admitted photo of vehicular homicide victim at scene . “The photograph was relevant to show the results of the collision and the cause of Whitehead’s death. [Cit.] And the photograph was not excludable because McClure had stipulated to the cause of death. [Cit.]” McClure v. State, 278 Ga. 411, 603 S.E.2d 224 (September 27, 2004). “ The trial court abused its discretion by admitting a post-autopsy photograph of the victim’s corpse taken after internal organs were procured for donation. In the photo of the torso, a long incision made in the victim’s chest in order to procure organs for donation is clearly visible, although it had been stitched closed. Post-autopsy photographs are particularly likely to be gruesome, and (like duplicitive photos) should be carefully screened before being admitted into evidence. [Cits.] For this reason, a photograph depicting the victim’s corpse after autopsy incisions are made, or after the state of the body has been changed by medical authorities, is only admissible to show a material fact that became apparent solely because of the autopsy…. Here, however, the photo of the victim’s torso displayed a chest-length incision that was not material to the issues being decided by the jury. The incision, while certainly associated with the victim’s death, was not relevant to the circumstances surrounding -- or the injuries that caused -- the death. [Cit.] Moreover, the incision was the result of actions taken by parties other than the assailant, rather than being directly caused by the assailant. [Cit.] Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the photo into evidence. In light of the overwhelming evidence of [defendant’s] guilt, though, we are confident that the admission of the photograph was harmless error. [Cit.]” Bell v. State, 278 Ga. 69, 597 S.E.2d 350 (May 24, 2004). “Contrary to Mr. Bell’s contention, the trial court did not err in admitting a pre-autopsy photograph into evidence, as the body had not been altered by authorities and as the photograph was admissible to demonstrate the nature and location of the victim’s wounds. [Cits.]” Accord, Rojas v. State , 280 Ga. 139, 625 S.E.2d 750 (January 17, 2006); Conway v. State , 281 Ga. 685, 642 S.E.2d 673 (March 19, 2007) (“While some of the photographs depicted the mutilation of the victims resulting from their wounds, and were graphic, that does not alter their admissibility.”). Miller v. State, 277 Ga. 707, 593 S.E.2d 659 (March 8, 2004). Pre-autopsy: “The photographs taken at the hospital showed tubes, cardiac leads, and tape applied by medical personnel to [victim’s] body. Miller claims these attachments should have been cropped from the photographs as they were alterations to the body that were not the result of the crimes charged. See Heard v. State, 257 Ga. 1, 2(2)(a) (354 S.E.2d 115) (1987). [fn] But the medical attachments of which Miller complains were ‘standard treatments and procedures initiated to attempt resuscitation of the child.’ Jackson v. State, 276 Ga. 94, 95(2) (575 S.E.2d 447) (2003). Generally, such photographs are not improperly inflammatory. See Avila-Nunez v. State, 237 Ga.App. 649, 651(1)(e) (516 S.E.2d 335) (1999). The photographs showed the injuries suffered