☢ test - Í

shown inasmuch as the photographs of Banta’s residence were relevant to illustrate the cluttered living conditions of the home leading to the difficulties that had to be dealt with by the emergency responders; they were also relevant to evaluate the details of Banta’s versions of how the child was injured as the result of contact with things in the home and yard and Banta’s efforts to help the child’s distress.” 3. ENLARGEMENT/COURTROOM DISPLAY Stewart v. State, 286 Ga. 669, 690 S.E.2d 811 (March 15, 2010). At defendant’s murder trial, no error in display of victim photos. “[T]he use of projectors to display undistorted photographs, including pre-autopsy photographs, to the jury is an accepted method of publication at trial. Jones v. State, 249 Ga. 605(2)(b) (293 S.E.2d 708) (1982).” Parrish v. State, 237 Ga.App. 274, 514 S.E.2d 458 (March 11, 1999). “ Parrish contends the trial court … erred in permitting the State to show the jury enlarged photographs of the victim and the crime scene during its closing argument. The photographs had already been admitted into evidence. The State did not seek to alter the photographs, but rather sought to show the photographs to the jurors through the use of a projector to enlarge the image. This argument lacks merit. ‘The photographs having been admitted ... it is not error that the state was able to present them in such manner that the entire jury, at one time, might view them. Indeed, the use of overhead projectors in courtrooms presents a far more orderly opportunity to display matters under investigation than the traditional mode , which is either to hold up a single photograph before a jury (where but few jurors are close enough to see it), or to pass the photographs from juror to juror while testimony is being taken, or to accumulate all photographs until the completion of testimony and introduce them en gross relying upon the jurors’ ability to recall the testimony in connection with the numbered exhibits.’ Dalton v. State, 251 Ga. 641, 642(2), 308 S.E.2d 835 (1983).” 4. GENERALLY Crayton v. State, S15A1506, ___ Ga. ___, 784 S.E.2d 343, 2016 WL 856238 (March 7, 2016). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed; photographs of defendant, taken from his cell phone, were relevant to show his appearance at the time of the offenses (changed at the time of trial). “Since appellant threw away the murder weapon and the police were unable to recover it, the photographs were also relevant to show the gun that was used. In fact, appellant testified that the gun in the photographs was the gun he used to shoot the victim.” Tyner v. State, 313 Ga.App. 557, 722 S.E.2d 177 (January 12, 2012). Shoplifting conviction affirmed; no error in admission of still photographs taken from surveillance video footage, also admitted into evidence. “Generally, ‘[t]he admission of cumulative evidence is harmless.’ Wright v. State, 259 Ga.App. 74, 78(4) (576 S.E.2d 64) (2003) (punctuation omitted). And here, Tyner failed to demonstrate how the admission of these photographs was prejudicial. Thus, her claim that the admission of this cumulative evidence constituted reversible error lacks merit.” Krause v. State, 286 Ga. 745, 691 S.E.2d 211 (March 22, 2010). Defendants’ murder conviction affirmed; co-defendant Chesser was properly allowed to play recording of 911 call to impeach witness’s testimony about substance of call. Whitaker v. State, 287 Ga.App. 465, 652 S.E.2d 568 (September 10, 2007). Trial court properly admitted photos of crime scene showing dummies placed in murder/assault victim’s position. “‘The question of the sufficiency of the preliminary proofs to identify photographs, or to show that it is a fair or accurate representation of the objects which it purports to portray, is a question committed to the discretion of the trial judge.’ (Emphasis supplied; punctuation omitted.) Tyler v. State, 275 Ga.App. 115, 116(2) (619 S.E.2d 804) (2005). In this case, the photographs purported to portray only [victim] Thomas’s location in the street. Moreover, we do not agree with Whitaker’s contention that the photographs were unduly prejudicial. Rather, an objective examination of the photographs reveals them to be innocuous demonstrative aids to establish Thomas’s location. See id. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the photographs for this limited purpose. See Veal v. State, 242 Ga.App. 873, 876(4) (531 S.E.2d 422) (2000) (‘“Where posed photographs shot at a later time are used and there is testimony as to immaterial variations between the picture and the scene, the judge’s decision to admit the pictorial representation will not ordinarily be reversed.”’).” Perkinson v. State, 279 Ga. 232, 610 S.E.2d 533 (March 14, 2005). “The trial court allowed the State to introduce into evidence during the penalty phase a videotape made months after the crime depicting the church parking lot, the inside of the BMW’s trunk, and the place on Paga Mine Road where the murder occurred, the stated intent of which was to depict the crime from the perspective of the victim…. Perkinson alleges the admission of this videotape was error. In considering the use of videotape evidence in Pickren v. State, 269 Ga. 453(2), 500 S.E.2d 566 (1998), we cautioned that