his right to allocution. Under OCGA § 17-10-2, during a presentence hearing, the judge shall “hear argument by the accused or the accused’s counsel and the prosecuting attorney, as provided by law, regarding the punishment to be imposed.” Here, because trial counsel spoke on his client’s behalf (and Pepe-Frazier even made a brief statement), 3) (751 SE2d 74) (2013) (noting that, because “the relatively brief testimony of [a law-enforcement officer] regarding gangs generally was dwarfed by the magnitude of testimony of the many witnesses offering evidence implicating [the defendant] in specific crimes of violence,” it was highly probable that any such error in admitting the testimony did not contribute to the jury’s verdicts); Sanders v. State, 251 Ga. 70, 76 (3) (303 SE2d 13) (1983) (<HOLDING>). 16 U. S. Const. amend. VIII (“Excessive bail
holding that improper admission of expert testimony was harmless in light of otherwise overwhelming evidence and fact that testimony covering substantially the same area was introduced without challenge holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that the admission of a family photo was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence in support of the conviction holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive