☢ test - Í

victim’s family member to identify the victim where other nonrelated witnesses are able to do so. ... [Cit.]’ Ledford v. State, 264 Ga. 60(14), 439 S.E.2d 917 (1994). Although the witness in this case was not a family member, she lived with Hood and referred to him in her testimony as the person she loved. Under those circumstances, the trial court’s decision to permit her to make the identification was subject to the criticism made in Ledford. However, there is no suggestion in the record that there was another witness less closely affiliated with Hood available to make the identification, and our review of the record persuades us that the identification by Hood’s fiancee did not produce such an emotional display as might deprive James of a fair trial.” Accord, Glenn v. State , 296 Ga. 509, 769 S.E.2d 291 (February 16, 2015) (no emotional display from murder victim’s mother as she identified his photo, hence no ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to the procedure). Jenkins v. State, 270 Ga. 607, 512 S.E.2d 269 (February 8, 1999). Malice murder conviction affirmed. “Under the general rule that pre-autopsy photographs of a victim are generally admissible, Hayes v. State, 268 Ga. 809(5), 493 S.E.2d 169 (1997), we conclude there was no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in allowing photographs which depicted the end result of emergency medical efforts but did not otherwise meaningfully alter the state of the victim’s body. Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862(5), 302 S.E.2d 347 (1983).” Photos here show sutures applied by EMTs. Brown v. State, 270 Ga. 601, 512 S.E.2d 260 (February 8, 1999). Malice murder conviction affirmed. “The trial court properly admitted a post-mortem photograph showing a portion of the victim's head which had been shaven around the fatal wound. Bell v. State, 257 Ga. 560, 561(3), 361 S.E.2d 488 (1987).” Rucker v. State, 270 Ga. 431, 510 S.E.2d 816 (January 19, 1999). Malice murder conviction affirmed. “[Defendant] contends that the trial court erroneously admitted allegedly inflammatory and prejudicial pre-incision autopsy photographs of the victim. According to the testimony of the medical examiner, the photos at issue depicted entry and exit wounds, one of which contained a bra stay that had penetrated the wound as a result of the gunshot. Pre-incision photos such as the ones currently at issue which depict the location and nature of the victim’s wounds are admissible because they are relevant and material. Williams v. State, 266 Ga. 882(2), 471 S.E.2d 888 (1996). See also Johnson v. State, 266 Ga. 775(8), 470 S.E.2d 637 (1996). There was no error in admitting the photos into evidence.” Accord, Bellamy v. State , 272 Ga. 157, 527 S.E.2d 867 (March 6, 2000); Buttram v. State , 280 Ga. 595, 631 S.E.2d 642 (June 12, 2006); McWilliams v. State , 280 Ga. 724, 632 S.E.2d 127 (July 6, 2006); Banks v. State , 281 Ga. 678, 642 S.E.2d 679 (March 19, 2007); Teal v. State , 282 Ga. 319, 647 S.E.2d 15 (June 25, 2007); Williams v. State , 282 Ga. 561, 651 S.E.2d 674 (September 24, 2007); Smith v. State , 283 Ga. 237, 657 S.E.2d 523 (January 28, 2008); Rouen v. State , 312 Ga.App. 8, 717 S.E.2d 519 (October 12, 2011); Holloman v. State , 291 Ga. 338, 729 S.E.2d 344 (July 2, 2012) (photo showed surgical incision as well as wounds infliced by defendant); Zamora v. State , 291 Ga. 512, 731 S.E.2d 658 (September 10, 2012); Simmons v. State , 291 Ga. 705, 733 S.E.2d 280 (October 15, 2012) (autopsy photos “were admitted to show injury to the victim's eyes and eyelid, which occurred as a result of blood vessel constriction during strangulation.”); Jones v. State , 296 Ga. 561, 769 S.E.2d 307 (February 16, 2015). 2. CRIME SCENE Ellington v. State, 292 Ga. 109, 735 S.E.2d 736 (November 19, 2012). Murder convictions affirmed. “The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the type and number of crime scene photographs it admitted at trial. See Riley v. State, 278 Ga. 677, 686, 604 S.E.2d 488 (2004) (‘The photographs admitted were relevant and admissible to show the nature and extent of the injuries to the victims and the locations and positions of the bodies....’). See also Stinski v. State, 281 Ga. 783, 785– 786, 642 S.E.2d 1 (2007) (noting a trial court's discretion in weighing the probative value of photographs against any ‘undue prejudice’).” Wilcher v. State, 291 Ga. 613, 732 S.E.2d 81 (October 1, 2012). Murder and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly admitted crime scene photographs, “which showed different angles of the scene, the position of the victim's body after the shooting, and the nature, location, and extent of the victim's wounds. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 280 Ga. 490(2) (629 S.E.2d 816) (2006) (crime scene photographs admissible, even if duplicative and inflammatory, if they show extent and nature of victim's wounds).” Banta v. State, 282 Ga. 392, 651 S.E.2d 21 (September 24, 2007). Trial court properly admitted photographs of defendant’s home, where infant victim died. “Banta’s residence was a crime scene. Photographs of a crime scene offered to show how it existed when authorities arrived are generally admissible. Palmer v. State, 277 Ga. 124, 125(3) (587 S.E.2d 1) (2003). Moreover, the trial court has broad discretion in balancing the probative and prejudicial nature of crime scene photographs. Dean v. State, 273 Ga. 806(2) (546 S.E.2d 499) (2001). In this case, no abuse of that discretion can be