☢ test - Í

interpretation of the tape; and that the jury had to decide the contents of the tape; and that any conflicts between the transcript and the tape must be resolved in favor of the tape. Almond v. State, 274 Ga. 348, 553 S.E.2d 803 (October 5, 2001). The procedure for introducing photographs taken with a digital camera is the same as that for introducing photographs taken with any type of camera, i.e., the photographs are admissible after the prosecution properly authenticates them as fair and truthful representations of what they purport to depict. Johnson v. State, 246 Ga.App. 239, 539 S.E.2d 914 (October 3, 2000). The defendant was charged with and convicted of financial transaction card fraud stemming from the use of an illegally acquired credit card from her boss’s purse. The victim was notified that someone was trying to use her card. The victim went down to the location where the attempted use of the card was made and ask the manager to describe the perpetrators. She then showed the manager a picture of the defendant, and the manager identified the defendant as one of the women who tried to use the card. At trial, the defendant tried to offer photographs of her nieces into to evidence to show their resemblances to her and to question the identification made by the store manager. The trial court refused to admit these photographs. Held, the trial court erred in excluding the photographs. Trial court’s error in refusing to admit photographs of defendant’s nieces to show their resemblances to her was harmful, where the sole defense was that another person committed crimes and the store manager’s unreliable identification of the defendant as the individual who attempted to use the victim’s credit card at the store may have been challenged had the jury been shown the photographs of the defendant’s nieces. Distinguished by Allen v. State , 268 Ga.App. 519, 602 S.E.2d 250 (July 15, 2004) (not error to rule out photographs and in-court appearances by two men resembling defendant, who also had committed robberies in the area, where no evidence connecting them to the robberies in question except one photo identification by one victim who retracted that identification when she saw that man and defendant in live line-up together). Rittenhouse v. State, 272 Ga. 78, 526 S.E.2d 342 (February 14, 2000). Defendant’s booking photograph was admissible to identify him since he had so dramatically changed his appearance since the crime that witnesses had difficulty identifying him. Diaz v. State, 239 Ga.App. 795, 522 S.E.2d 242 (September 2, 1999). Video tape was properly admitted because officer testified he used the video camera to record the transaction; he viewed the video prior to trial; he was familiar with how the camera operated; it was working properly; the tape was a fair and accurate representation of the events that took place. Jackson v. State, 270 Ga. 494, 512 S.E.2d 241 (February 8, 1999). “[A] videotape, depicting a walk-through of the crime scene, was relevant and admissible, even though it duplicated still photographs. Foster v. State, 258 Ga. 736, 740(7), 374 S.E.2d 188 (1988).” Accord, Curry v. State, 243 Ga.App. 712, 534 S.E.2d 168 (April 27, 2000) (“The complaint that photographs of the injured victim are duplicative is not a ground to exclude them from evidence.”). 5. INAUDIBLE RECORDING Pasuer v. State, 271 Ga.App. 259, 609 S.E.2d 193 (January 7, 2005), overruled on other grounds, Vergara v. State , 283 Ga. 175, 657 S.E.2d 863 (February 25, 2008). “As long as the State presents a proper foundation for an audiotape, a trial court has the discretion to admit it, even if part of it is inaudible. Guess v. State, 264 Ga. 335, 336(2) (443 S.E.2d 477) (1994). Further, if the parties who were present when the audiotape was made testify about the statements or transaction recorded, the tape may be admitted as corroboration of the witnesses’ testimony, even if it is partially inaudible. Kelley v. State, 168 Ga.App. 911, 913(3) (311 S.E.2d 180) (1983). In fact, a trial court is not required to exclude an otherwise admissible audiotape containing inaudible material unless the tape is the only evidence offered to prove a material fact. Pierce v. State, 255 Ga.App. 194, 195(1) (564 S.E.2d 790) (2002); Kelley v. State, 168 Ga.App. at 913(3). Once the trial court exercises its discretion and admits an audiotape, ‘in the absence of a showing of tampering, alteration, or other major deficiency attacking the basic integrity of the recordings, the fact that portions of the [audiotape] are inaudible goes to weight and not admissibility.’ Guerra v. State, 210 Ga.App. 102, 105(9) (435 S.E.2d 476) (1993).” Heard v. State, 257 Ga.App. 505, 571 S.E.2d 524 (September 20, 2002). “Whether to admit a tape recording of a conversation when part of the conversation is inaudible is in the trial court’s discretion…. Indeed, poor audio quality that results in inaudible portions of a videotape can certainly be used to attack the weight and credibility of the videotape, but is not necessarily a roadblock to the tape’s admissibility.” Accord, Dyer v. State , 298 Ga.App. 327, 680 S.E.2d 177 (June 12, 2009); Steed v. State , 309 Ga.App. 546, 710 S.E.2d 696 (May 11, 2011).