☢ test - Í

‘the extreme vividness and verisimilitude of pictorial evidence is truly a two-edged sword. For not only is the danger that the jury may confuse art with reality particularly great, but the impressions generated by the evidence may prove particularly difficult to limit or, if the film is subsequently deemed inadmissible, to expunge by judicial instruction.’ We further acknowledged that use of a videotape is unauthorized ‘where the situation or event sought to be depicted is simple, the testimony adequate, and the picture adds nothing except the visual image to the mental image already produced. [Cit.]’ Pickren, supra, 269 Ga. at 456, 500 S.E.2d 566. In this case, the introduction of the video portrayal was unauthorized in that it depicted a simple event already adequately represented by testimony and for which the portrayal added nothing to the existing mental image already created. Although we hold the admission was error, due to the brevity of the tape and the fact that it in essence was little more than the fair and accurate depiction of the crime scene and not a reenactment of the crime itself, we find the error was harmless in this case.” Farmer v. State, 268 Ga.App. 831, 603 S.E.2d 16 (June 25, 2004). At sentencing hearing, trial court properly admitted photograph identified by witness as received from City of Atlanta police department. Photograph bore same name and identifying number as certified copy of conviction admitted into evidence. The name was not defendant’s name, but allegedly an alias used by him, and trial court concluded after reviewing the photograph that it was, in fact, defendant. “While the better practice certainly would have been for the state to obtain a separate certification of the book-in photographs pursuant to OCGA § 24-7-20, we cannot say, given the matching name and number on the certified accusation, that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the photographs as properly authenticated. Nor do we believe that the trial court erred in overruling Farmer’s hearsay objection as the trial court relied upon his own knowledge of Farmer in concluding that he was the man depicted in the authenticated book-in photographs.” Palmer v. State, S03A0786, 277 Ga. 124, 587 S.E.2d 1 (September 22, 2003). “[T]he trial court did not err by allowing the state to provide the jurors with a transcript of Palmer’s statements to police while the audiotapes of those statements were being played. With a proper foundation, the transcript of a defendant’s admissible statement to police may be provided to jurors as an evidentiary aid so long as the trial judge imposes sufficient safeguards to ensure that the jurors do not treat the transcript as independent evidence. The state laid a proper foundation for the transcript of Palmer’s statements in this case, and the trial court properly informed the jury that the transcript was not to be considered independent evidence. The transcript was taken away from the jurors after the audio tapes of Palmer’s statements had been played.” Accord, Stinski v. State , 286 Ga. 839, 691 S.E.2d 854 (March 1, 2010) (“the trial court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on the limited use of transcripts as aids and then allowing the corrected transcript to be used,” citing Palmer ). Knight v. State, 257 Ga.App. 470, 571 S.E.2d 397 (August 29, 2002). Tape recordings of defendant’s conversations with drug buyer working for state were properly admitted: “the officer operating the recorder knew how to do so; that the tape recorder was working properly; that [the witness] recognized [the voices on the tape]; that [the witness] reviewed the tape before testifying; and that the tape had not been changed, altered, or deleted.” Mobley v. State, 255 Ga.App. 263, 564 S.E.2d 851 (May 6, 2002). “A videotape is admissible where the operator of the machine which produced it, or one who personally witnessed the events recorded, testifies that the videotape accurately portrayed what the witness saw take place at the time.” Head v. State, 254 Ga.App. 550, 562 S.E.2d 815 (March 27, 2002). Just before the commencement of trial on charge of aggravated assault, defendant moved in limine to redact a portion of a videotaped statement he gave to police relating to his suspended driver’s license. The trial court allowed the videotape to be shown to the jury, simply muting that portion wherein the suspended license was discussed. Held, it was not error to proceed in this fashion, given that the State had no opportunity to edit the tape, no motion for mistrial was made at the time, and defendant did not request a curative instruction on any possible “inference” the jury might draw “that something negative about the Defendant was being hidden from them.” Further held, it was not error to play for the jury that part of the videotape where the interviewing officer asked defendant, “if witnesses stated that you had a gun, they would be lying?” The question was not asked to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and in any event the victim had already testified to this fact, so at worst it was harmless error, cumulative of legally admissible evidence. Nor was it “impermissibly bolstering” of the victim’s credibility because the officer did not state an opinion about the truthfulness of the victim. Edwards v. State, 253 Ga.App. 479, 559 S.E.2d 506 (January 25, 2002). It was not error for the trial court to allow the prosecution to provide the jury with transcripts of the victim’s audiotaped interview before playing the tape for the jury. The court gave the jury a cautionary instruction that: use of the transcript was optional; the transcript was one person’s