has exercised its discretion to admit [materials for the purpose of illustrating testimony], it will only rarely be found in error, at least if potentially misleading inaccuracies have been pointed out by witnesses for the proponent, or could have been exposed upon cross-examination. (Citation omitted.) J. B. Hunt Transport, supra, 236 Ga. App. at 636 (1) (b). Here, given its purpose of illustrating the state trooper’s testimony, along with the fact that any inaccuracies in the training video’s depiction of HGN could have been brought out upon cross-examination of the state trooper, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the HGN test training video to be played to the jury. Cf. id.; accord Hartsock u. State, 322 SW3d 775, 777-780 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010) (<HOLDING>). 7. Travis contends that the trial court erred
holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting settlement evidence for the limited purpose of proving converses estoppel claims holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting law enforcement training dvd showing how a persons eyes look with and without hgn where dvd was shown to the jury for the purpose of helping them understand the officers testimony about the hgn test administered to the defendant holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence