Bradley Wade appeals from his conviction for three counts of child molestation and one count of sexual battery. Wade contends the trial court erred in its admission of prior consistent statements of the victim and a child witness. He also asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 1. Wade asserts that the trial court erred by admitting prior consistent statements of the victim and Wade’s son in videotaped interviews that also included comments by the interviewer. According to Wade, the comments “should have been eliminated from the tape before showing it to the jury.”1 With regard to the victim, Wade complains about comments that appear in a portion of the videotape that the trial court ruled would not be presented for the jury. Nothing in the record before us demonstrates that this portion of the videotape was played for the jury, and Wade’s counsel made no objection after the videotape was played. As a result, we find no merit in this portion of Wade’s argument.
With regard to his son’s interview, Wade complains generally about “the interviewer making statements which are not statements made by his son.” He does not, however, point to any specific comments made by the interviewer to support his claim that he suffered prejudice by their admission. Moreover, the portion of the trial transcript where this videotape was played demonstrates that Wade’s trial counsel and the State agreed to play only a portion of the videotape, that an unidentified portion of the videotape was played, and that Wade’s counsel made no objection after the videotape was played. Wade “bears the burden of proving error affirmatively by the record.” Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted. Nowill v. State , 271 Ga. App. 254, 259 5 609 SE2d 188 2005. “It is not the function of this court to cull the record on behalf of a party in search of instances of error.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Mathis v. State , 299 Ga. App. 831, 835 1 b n. 15 684 SE2d 6 2009. Admission of the interviewer’s statements alone, without a demonstration of prejudice from specific comments, does not warrant a new trial. See Nowill , supra; Turner v. State , 253 Ga. App. 760, 762 2 560 SE2d 539 2002.
