06 Ga. 117, 124 (2) n.3, 829 S.E.2d 367 (2019) ; Thompson v. State , 201 Ga. App. 646, 649 (5), 411 S.E.2d 886 (1991) ; Nichols v. State , 200 Ga. App. 297, 299 (3), 407 S.E.2d 493 (1991) ; Dyous v. State , 195 Ga. App. 99, 100 (3), (392 S.E.2d 730) (1990) ; Stephens v. State , 185 Ga. App. 825, 826 (3), 366 S.E.2d 211 (1988) ; Fuqua v. State , 183 Ga. App. 414, 420 (2), 359 S.E.2d 165 (1987) ; Taylor v. State , 183 Ga. App. 314, 317 (11), 358 S.E.2d 845 (1987) ; Curtis v. State , 182 Ga. App. 899, 901 (3), 357 S.E.2d 602 (1987) ; Sears v. State , 182 Ga. App. 480, 484 (11), 356 S.E.2d 72 (1987), overruled on other grounds by Johnston v. State , 213 Ga. App. 579, 580, 445 S.E.2d 566 (1994) ; Eady v. State , 182 Ga. App. 293, 300 (11), 355 S.E.2d 778 (1987) ; Campbell v. State , 181 Ga. App. 1, 3 (2), 351 S.E.2d 209 (1986), disapproved on other grounds by Coleman v. State , 271 Ga. 800, 805 (8), 523 S.E.2d 852 (1999) ; Cooper v. State , 178 Ga. App. 709, 716 (10), 345 S.E.2d 606 (1986) Montford v. State , 168 Ga. App. 394, 397 (6), 309 S.E.2d 650 (1983) ; Veal v. State , 167 Ga. App. 175, 177 (3) (d), 306 S.E.2d 667 (1983) ; Chappell v. State , 164 Ga. App. 77, 80 (8), 296 S.E.2d 629 (1982) ; Butler v. State , 163 Ga. App. 475, 476 (4), 294 S.E.2d 700 (1982) ; Gilstrap v. State , 162 Ga. App. 841, 848 (12), 292 S.E.2d 495 (1982) ; Sierra v. State , 155 Ga. App. 198, 201, 270 S.E.2d 368 (1980) ; Suits v. State , 150 Ga. App. 285, 289 (5), 257 S.E.2d 306 (1979) ; Haas v. State , 146 Ga. App. 729, 734 (8), 247 S.E.2d 507 (1978). *We disapprove these Court of Appeals cases to the extent that they make the broad pronouncement that Georgia does not recognize the cumulative error doctrine, but they already have been disapproved, explicitly or implicitly, to the extent that they indicate that Georgia courts will not consider the cumulative prejudicial effect of counsel’s errors.

We review a claim of improper comments by a trial judge for abuse of discretion. See Montford v. State, 168 Ga. App. 394, 396 (5) ( 309 SE2d 650) (1983) (because the trial court has broad discretion in regulating and controlling the business of the court, the reviewing court should never interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is made to appear that wrong or oppression has resulted from its abuse, or that the court in some manner takes away the rights the parties have under the law). "It is error for any judge in any criminal case, during its progress or in his charge to the jury, to express or intimate his opinion as to what has or has not been proved or as to the guilt of the accused."

OCGA § 16-13-27 (4) (D). Compare Woods v. State, 233 Ga. 347, 349 (2) ( 211 SE2d 300) (1974) (rejecting defendant's argument that state must prove his lack of authority to sell drugs: "[w]hether an individual has a license or is otherwise lawfully permitted to have in his possession narcotic drugs . . . is a matter of defense and not an element of the offense") (citations omitted); Sellers v. State, 182 Ga. App. 277, 278-279 ( 355 SE2d 770) (1987) (reversing convictions of possessing drugs for which defendant claimed to have a valid prescription because jury charge erroneously placed burden upon defendant to prove that he possessed the controlled substances pursuant to a valid prescription); Montford v. State, 168 Ga. App. 394, 396 (4) ( 309 SE2d 650) (1983) (where defendant presented no evidence at trial and no issue was raised as to his authority to possess and distribute heroin, trial court did not err in charging jury that "[t]he burden shall be on the defendant to show his authority to possess such heroin as provided by law") (punctuation omitted); Nix v. State, 135 Ga. App. 672, 674 ( 219 SE2d 6) (1975) (conviction for unlawful possession of amphetamines reversed where defendant claimed he legally possessed drugs under valid prescription and trial court failed to instruct the jury on the specific exemption raised by defendant as his sole defense). Supra. See, e.g., Ross v. State, 210 Ga. App. 455, 458 (3) ( 436 SE2d 496) (1993) (affirming conviction for possession with intent to distribute Demerol where evidence showed that defendant sold validly prescribed pills to fellow inmate).

Butler v. State, 163 Ga. App. 475, 476 ( 294 S.E.2d 700) (1982). Accord Montford v. State, 168 Ga. App. 394, 397 (6) ( 309 S.E.2d 650) (1983)." Dyous v. State, 195 Ga. App. 99, 100 (3) ( 392 S.E.2d 730).

Butler v. State, 163 Ga. App. 475, 476 ( 294 S.E.2d 700) (1982). Accord Montford v. State, 168 Ga. App. 394, 397 (6) ( 309 S.E.2d 650) (1983). 4.

Id. at 616-617. Without reference to Strong, supra, this court, in Montford v. State, 168 Ga. App. 394 (4) ( 309 S.E.2d 650) (1983), subsequently upheld a drug conviction in the face of a burden-shifting charge similar to the one at issue in the present case. In support of that decision, the court cited Woods v. State, 233 Ga. 347 (1a) ( 211 S.E.2d 300) (1974).

"`The granting or refusing of bail in felony cases after indictment and conviction is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not control that discretion unless it has been flagrantly abused.' [Cit.]" Montford v. State, 168 Ga. App. 394 (7) ( 309 S.E.2d 650) (1983). After conducting a hearing at which several of appellant's neighbors testified, the trial court found that appellant posed a danger "to others and to the community."

"`Because of the trial court's broad discretion in regulating and controlling the business of the court, the reviewing court should never interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is made to appear that wrong or oppression has resulted from its abuse, or the court in some manner takes away the rights the parties have under the law.' [Cit.]" Montford v. State, 168 Ga. App. 394 (5) ( 309 S.E.2d 650) (1983). In the present case, appellants made no request that the trial court remove the jury.

Thus, this enumeration is without merit." Montford v. State, 168 Ga. App. 394, 395 (3)-396 ( 309 S.E.2d 650). 3. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a directed verdict.