However, "[u]nder Georgia law, generally, 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 the events occurred." Moore v. State , 305 Ga. 251, 255, 824 S.E.2d 377 (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied). Frazier testified that she personally witnessed the events recorded and that the video accurately portrayed them.

Under these circumstances, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the introduction of the video did not contribute to the verdict. See Armstrong , 310 Ga. at 605 (3), 852 S.E.2d 824 (concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that testimony describing a photo of the defendant showing gang hand signs, even if hearsay and a violation of the Confrontation Clause, did not contribute to the verdict in light of other strong evidence of guilt); Moore v. State , 305 Ga. 251, 255 (1) (a), 824 S.E.2d 377 (2019) (concluding, in light of strong evidence that defendant committed crimes charged, that it is highly probable the admission of a YouTube video showing the defendant displaying gang signs, even if the video lacked a proper foundation, did not contribute to the jury's verdict). Dunn does not argue that the evidentiary errors we assume for purposes of analysis in this opinion, though individually harmless, nevertheless cumulatively resulted in harm, and we discern no apparent cumulative prejudice on this record.

In each of the cases from this Court cited by Jefferson, the trial court denied the motion for a new trial as to murder charges but granted the motion, apparently on insufficiency of evidence grounds, with respect to another count. See Moore v. State , 305 Ga. 251, 251 n.1, 824 S.E.2d 377 (2019) (criminal street gang activity count set aside by trial court); Wilson v. State , 301 Ga. 83, 83 n.1, 799 S.E.2d 757 (2017) (evidence insufficient on financial transaction card fraud count).--------

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Moore v. State, 305 Ga. 251, 253-254 (2), 824 S.E.2d 377 (2019). OCGA § 24-9-923 (c) sets forth the standards for admitting video recordings created by unmanned cameras such as the store surveillance video the trial court admitted here.

(Citation omitted.) Moore v. State , 305 Ga. 251, 253-254 (2), 824 S.E.2d 377 (2019). Subject to any other valid objection, photographs, motion pictures, video recordings, and audio recordings produced at a time when the device producing the items was not being

"Where an appellant fails to make an objection to the admission of evidence in the trial court, the claim of error is not preserved for ordinary appellate review." Moore v. State , 305 Ga. 251, 255 (2) (b), 824 S.E.2d 377 (2019). See OCGA § 24-1-103 (a) (1).

Instead, these cases explained that such a failure meant that a conviction for a gang charge could not stand. See Moore v. State, 305 Ga. 251, 254, 824 S.E.2d 377 (2019) (explaining that "the trial court ultimately set aside Moore’s conviction on the charge of criminal gang activity … based on its finding that the evidence failed to show the requisite nexus between Moore’s crimes and furtherance of the gang’s interests") (punctuation omitted); In the Interest of W. B., 342 Ga. App. 277, 277, 283, 801 S.E.2d 595 (2017) (reversing the adjudication of delinquency for criminal gang activity because there "was insufficient evidence to support a finding that [the appellant] had engaged in criminal gang activity").