☢ test - Í

by the victim and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them.” Post-autopsy: “Post-incision autopsy photographs of the victim ‘are admissible if necessary to show some material fact that becomes apparent only due to the autopsy.’ Peterson v. State, 274 Ga. 165, 171(5) (549 S.E.2d 387) (2001). These autopsy photographs showed injuries under the scalp, to the brain, and to the interior of the torso, and demonstrated the extent of trauma to [victim’s] head and the force with which he had been held. None of this could have been shown simply by photographs of the outside of the body.” Accord, Banks v. State , 271 Ga. 678, 642 S.E.2d 679 (March 19, 2007). Smith v. State, 265 Ga.App. 236, 593 S.E.2d 695 (January 20, 2004). No error in admitting photograph of deceased merely because of presence of her sister in photograph, too. “Generally, it is not error to admit a photograph of the victim while in life. Norton v. State, 263 Ga. 448(6) (435 S.E.2d 30) (1993).” Jones v. State, 265 Ga.App. 97, 592 S.E.2d 888 (January 8, 2004 ). “‘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,’” quoting Brown v. State , 250 Ga. 862, 867, 302 S.E.2d 347 (1983). Photos of victim’s brain were properly admitted because they showed injury to left side of brain, caused when defendant hit him with baseball bat, which contributed to death and which “only became apparent because of the autopsy.” The photos “‘were admissible to aid the medical examiner in describing the cause and manner of death,’” quoting Peterson v. State , 274 Ga. 165, 171, 549 S.E.2d 387 (2001). Accord, Dyers v. State , 277 Ga. 859, 596 S.E.2d 595 (May 24, 2004); Morris v. State , 276 Ga.App. 775, 624 S.E.2d 281 (December 9, 2005) (pre-autopsy photographs of victim’s head, shaved and tissue pulled back to show bullet wound, were admissible and “cannot be equated with those depicting post-mortem surgical procedures.”); Stinski v. State , 281 Ga. 783, 642 S.E.2d 1 (February 2, 2007); Wilcher v. State , 291 Ga. 613, 732 S.E.2d 81 (October 1, 2012); Leslie v. State , 292 Ga. 368, 738 S.E.2d 42 (February 4, 2013); Norton v. State , 293 Ga. 332, 745 S.E.2d 630 (July 1, 2013) (“The photographs aided the medical examiner in testifying as to the range and direction of travel of the shotgun pellets, which, coming from the rear of the right side of [victim's] head, served to rebut the defense of accident, and it was not error for the court to admit them into evidence.”); Stewart v. State , 296 Ga. 448, 769 S.E.2d 50 (February 2, 2015) (similar to Jones ); Dailey v. State , 297 Ga. 442, 774 S.E.2d 672 (June 29, 2015); Churchill v. State , 298 Ga. 471, 782 S.E.2d 5 (January 19, 2016). Gissendaner v. State, 272 Ga. 704, 532 S.E.2d 677 (July 5, 2000). Capital murder conviction affirmed. “The trial court did not err, as Gissendaner contends, in admitting photographs and a videotape depicting the victim's body as it was found at the crime scene and prior to autopsy. Jackson v. State, 270 Ga. 494, 498(8), 512 S.E.2d 241 (1999); Jenkins v. State, 269 Ga. at 293(20), 498 S.E.2d 502. ‘Photographs showing the condition and location of the victim's body are admissible where alterations to the body are due to the combined forces of the murderer and the elements.’ Klinect v. State, 269 Ga. 570, 574(4), 501 S.E.2d 810 (1998).” Jackson v. State , 272 Ga. 429, 531 S.E.2d 700 (May 30, 2000). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; autopsy photographs were properly admitted. “The medical examiner testified that without these photographs, the internal injuries to the vagina, hemorrhaging in the brain, neck, and interior of the rib cage, and bites on the tongue, would not be apparent and that the injuries could not be shown merely by photographs of the exterior of the body. Because these injuries did not become apparent until the autopsy, the photographs were admissible to aid the medical examiner in describing the cause and manner of death. Holland v. State, 267 Ga. 833, 836(2), 483 S.E.2d 584 (1997); Thornton v. State, 264 Ga. 563, 571, 449 S.E.2d 98 (1994); Brown [ v. State, 250 Ga. 862(5), 302 S.E.2d 347 (1983)]. The photographs were also admissible as rebutting Jackson's version of events that Richardson died as the result of an accident. Thornton, supra.” Murray v. State, 271 Ga. 504, 521 S.E.2d 564 (September 20, 1999). At defendant’s murder trial, “[p]hotos depicting the condition and location of the body as found are admissible over the assertion that they are prejudicial. Hance v. State, 254 Ga. 575(4), 332 S.E.2d 287 (1985). See also Sterling v. State, 267 Ga. 209(10), 477 S.E.2d 807 (1996).” Accord, Sharp v. State , 286 Ga. 799, 692 S.E.2d 325 (March 22, 2010) (no error in admitting “three photographs of the victim’s body tied to the tree in the cemetery” where it was found “to demonstrate the different injuries sustained by the victim.”). James v. State, 270 Ga. 675, 513 S.E.2d 207 (March 1, 1999). Felony murder conviction affirmed. “The trial court did not err in permitting the State to have Hood’s fiancee identify a picture of him in life. ‘ The general rule is that it is not error to admit a photograph of the victim while in life. [Cit.] However, the better practice is to not permit a