partially covered by clothing. These exhibits merely depict .the crime scene and the condition of the victim’s body. See Williams, 301 S.W.3d at 693; Narvaiz, 840 S.W.2d at 430. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the. exhibits. Appellant also argues that State’s exhibit 119, the crime scene video, contains cumulative images of the same gruesome photographs. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held, however, that a videotape and still photographs are not entirely cumulative of each other, as a videotape offers a panoramic view of the scene that still photographs often do not offer. Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 392 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); see also Flores v. State, 915 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the panoramic view of the crime
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting videotape that portrayed the crime scene in considerable detail and offered a three dimensional perspective holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it gave aggravating factors considerable weight holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence