Dеfendant Steven Keith Turner was convicted of theft by taking, *879 aggravated sodomy, rape and kidnapрing with bodily harm. Evidence was presented that defendant grabbed the victim, a pizza restaurant emplоyee, when she came to his door to make a delivery. He threatened her with a pistol and mаde her crawl into the bedroom where he tied her to the bed with ropes, causing injury to her wrists, forced her to commit oral sex upon him and then raped her. Defendant left the house and when the victim was able to free herself she discovered the automobile she had driven to the house was missing. The automobile was later found abandoned a few miles from the defendant’s house.
1. Defendant first argues thе trial court erred in failing to give his request to charge on the law of circumstantial evidence. “An instruction on circumstantial evidence is required only when the case is totally dependent upon circumstantial evidence.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Arnett v. State,
2. A rentеd videotape, described by the trial court as a “sex and violence tape,” was found in the dеfendant’s home by officers conducting a search pursuant to a search warrant on the evеning the offense took place. The movie was shown to the jury in its entirety. The movie portrayed thе kidnapping of a young girl by strangers who planned to use her, against her will, in pornographic films. The movie portrayed scenes involving violence, physical threats and the use of guns including one scene in which a woman is thrown on a bed and violently threatened with rape before being rescued by the police. In the final scene the young victim is shown shooting her assailant. Defendant contends the trial court erred in showing the movie to the jury because, he argues, it was inflammatory and glorified the taking of rеvenge on the assailant. Defendant argues no foundation was laid for showing the movie to the jury beсause no evidence was presented that defendant rented or viewed the movie. Moreоver, he argues showing the movie to the jury improperly raised the issue of his character, as prоhibited by OCGA § 24-9-20 (b).
The evidence shows defendant lived alone. Moreover, defendant
*880
did not raise an objection at the time of trial to the foundation laid for the showing of the movie. “ ‘There was no error in admitting the [movie] ... as the jury may have made the permissible inferences that viewing [a movie involving kidnapрing and attempted rape] may have encouraged defendant’s initial perpetration of the crimes of kidnapping and sodomy [and rape], or, at least aided in showing his intent thereof.’ [Cit.] ”
Watson v. State,
*880
3. We rejеct defendant’s argument that the offense of kidnapping with bodily harm merged with the offense of rape in this case. “In determining whether a crime is established by proof of the same or less than all the faсts required to establish the commission of another crime within the meaning of OCGA § 16-1-6, we look to the actual evidence introduced at trial. If the state uses up all the evidence that the defendant committed one crime in establishing another crime, the former crime is included in the latter as a matter оf fact under OCGA § 16-1-6.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Morris v. State,
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.