Therefore [the defendant's] corroboration argument has no support in the law and will not be considered by this [C]ourt.”) (punctuation omitted); Greulich v. State, 263 Ga.App. 552, 554(2), 588 S.E.2d 450 (2003) (“The jury obviously believed the victim's testimony as to the two counts on which [the defendant] was found guilty. Determining the credibility of witnesses is entirely within the province of the jury.”) (punctuation omitted); OCGA § 16–6–1(a)(1) (“A person commits the offense of rape when [the defendant penetrates the female sex organ with his sex organ] forcibly and against [the victim's] will.
Bradley, supra at 737-738 (citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted). See Greulich v. State, 263 Ga. App. 552, 553-554 (2) ( 588 SE2d 450) (2003). Adjudged by these principles, the evidence was sufficient to support Colton's conviction of aggravated sexual battery.
In the prosecution of sexual child molestation, pornographic materials are admissible only if they can be linked to the crime charged. Gruelich v. State, 263 Ga. App. 552, 553 (1) ( 588 SE2d 450) (2003). Here, Newton admitted to looking at the pornographic magazines while he was in the same room as the victim in her mother's house on the date of the child molestations.
But we find that the testimony of the child victims, along with the other evidence presented by the state, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Blevins was guilty of child molestation. See Abdulkadir v. State, 264 Ga. App. 805, 806 (1) ( 592 SE2d 433) (2003); Greulich v. State, 263 Ga. App. 552, 554 (2) ( 588 SE2d 450) (2003). 2. Blevins next contends that the trial court erred in not granting him a continuance to speak with a state witness.
Here, all four victims were shown sexually explicit videotapes before their molestation, and this was sufficient for the introduction of the videotapes. Greulich v. State, 263 Ga. App. 552, 553 (1) ( 588 SE2d 450) (2003); see Davidson v. State, 231 Ga. App. 605, 608-609 (3) ( 499 SE2d 697) (1998). There was no error in denial of the motion for new trial on this ground.