It is not improper for the State to refer to one of the witnesses as a victim, rather than as an alleged victim. Hart v. State, 314 Ga. App. 685 (2012). Even though referring to the witness as the “victim” may technically imply that a crime has been committed, the use of the term “victim” during criminal prosecutions means the witness is the complaining party and allegedly the object of a crime. Hart v. State, 314 Ga. App. 685 (2012).
Victim-impact evidence goes to the impact of the crime on the victim, the victim's family, or the community. In the Interest of W.N.J., 268 Ga. App. 637 (2004). Such evidence is admissible only at the sentencing phase of a trial, and admission of victim impact evidence during the guilt or innocence phase of the trial may constitute reversible error. Lucas v. State, 274 Ga. 640 (2001); Anthony v. State, 282 Ga. App. 457 (2006). Not all testimony that describes how the crime has affected the victim is impermissible in the guilt/innocence phase of trial. Details of context that allow jurors to understand what is being described are not improper when they are necessary to show something sufficiently relevant. Humphrey v. Lewis, 291 Ga. 202 (2012).