and 2008, he saw 40 to 50 photographs of people posing in front of the brick Amberfield Subdivision sign, including Zamudio, Jacobo, Gonzalez, and a man named Flores, with the latter two making Sureños 13 “gang signs.” Zamudio argues on appeal that the State should have been required to produce the photographs or web pages themselves under the best evidence rule, while conceding that former OCGA § 24-5-4, which was applicable to this trial, did not generally apply to photographs or recordings. Assuming that the objection made at trial was sufficient to raise a best evidence objection, we find no error. Photographs were not considered writings under former OCGA § 24-5-4, and were therefore not subject to the best evidence rule. See Smith v. State, 236 Ga. 5, 8 (2) (222 SE2d 357) (1976) (<HOLDING>). Zamudio also argues that the detective’s
holding that the best evidence rule did not apply to a photograph of a police lineup holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion holding that where the actual content of a 911 tape was never in dispute the best evidence rule was inapplicable holding that best interest of child need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted