"When the only murder conviction is for felony murder and a defendant is convicted of both felony murder and the predicate felony of the felony murder charge, the conviction for the predicate felony merges into the felony murder conviction." Allen v. State , 307 Ga. 707, 710-711 (5), 838 S.E.2d 301 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). See OCGA § 16-1-7 (a) (1) (When the same conduct of an accused may establish the commission of more than one crime, the accused may not "be convicted of more than one crime if ... [o]ne crime is included in the other[.]").
Finally, although Durden does not raise the issue on appeal, "[w]hen the only murder conviction is for felony murder and a defendant is convicted of both felony murder and the predicate felony of the felony murder charge, the conviction for the predicate felony merges into the felony murder conviction." Allen v. State, 307 Ga. 707, 710-11 (5), 838 S.E.2d 301 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). Because Durden’s conviction for felony murder is predicated on armed robbery, the trial court should not have separately sentenced Durden on the armed robbery conviction.
"When the only murder conviction is for felony murder and a defendant is convicted of both felony murder and the predicate felony of the felony murder charge, the conviction for the predicate felony merges into the felony murder conviction." Allen v. State, 307 Ga. 707, 710-11 (5) (838 S.E.2d 301) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Brown v. State, 302 Ga. 813, 816 (3) (809 S.E.2d 742) (2018); OCGA § 16-1-7 (a) (1) ("When the same conduct of an accused may establish the commission of more than one crime," the accused may not "be convicted of more than one crime if . . . [o]ne crime is included in the other[.]").
Moreover, the wound pictures were useful for the jury to understand why the medical examiner was unable to determine which gunshot wound caused Martin's death. See Allen v. State, 307 Ga. 707, 710 (3) (838 S.E.2d 301) (2020) ("Autopsy photographs may be relevant and probative to show the nature and location of a victim's injuries, even if the cause of death is not disputed."); Albury v. State, 314 Ga. 459, 462 (3) (877 S.E.2d 548) (2022) (no abuse of discretion in admitting post-incision autopsy photograph showing an injury to the victim's head after the skin of his scalp and face had been peeled back to show the nature of the victim's injuries in support of the State's theory that the appellant participated in the crimes); Flowers v. State, 307 Ga. 618, 624 (3) (837 S.E.2d 824) (2020) (admission of photograph of victim's brain not an abuse of discretion where it was relevant to show an injury's severity). Accordingly, Salvesen has failed to show that these photographs should have been excluded under Rule 403 and that the trial court abused its broad discretion in admitting the
"Autopsy photographs may be relevant and probative to show the nature and location of a victim's injuries, even if the cause of death is not disputed." Allen v. State , 307 Ga. 707, 710, 838 S.E.2d 301 (2020).
See id. at 800 (3), 809 S.E.2d 756. See also Allen v. State , 307 Ga. 707, 710 (3), 838 S.E.2d 301 (2020). The State also published 36 photographs through a GBI agent that depicted various images of the crime scene, over defense counsel's continuing objection.
"Under the current Evidence Code, excluding relevant evidence under Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy that should be used only sparingly." Allen v. State , 307 Ga. 707, 710 (3), 838 S.E.2d 301 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). "(I)t is only unfair prejudice, substantially outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of relevant matter under Rule 403."
Important here, "[a]utopsy photographs may be relevant and probative to show the nature and location of a victim’s injuries, even if the cause of death is not disputed." Allen v. State, 307 Ga. 707, 710, 838 S.E.2d 301 (2020). "We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard of review."