GA CST One-Liners Flashcards
Brown v. State (1960)
GA SC: “understanding nature and object of proceedings against him and rightly comprehends his own condition in reference to such proceedings, and is capable of rendering his attorneys such assistance as a proper defense to the indictment preferred against him demands.”
Difference b/w Dusky and Brown
Brown explicitly adds requirement that defendant comprehends his own condition in reference to such proceedings, which is often inferred in Dusky
Bacon v. State (1966)
GA SC: Since special jury trial is civil proceeding, defendant can be called for cross-examination but not asked Qs related to guilt or innocence.
Lingo v. State (1968)
GA SC: Not violation of 6A to order psych eval before defendant appoints counsel. Also not violation to admit psych testimony from exam preceding counsel appointment. Finally, both expert and non-expert witnesses can give opinions on competency, but expert can base opinion on “hypothetical statements of facts and may state his opinion without giving any reason.”
Crawford v. State (1977)
GA SC: g v ng not relevant to CST, and witnesses/defendant cannot be questioned on such during trial for CST
Martin v. State (1978)
GA COA: Martin filed special plea of insanity but then pled guilty before CST proceedings completed. Entitled to new trial bc court shouldn’t have accepted guilty plea before CST matter pending.
Banks v. State (1980)
GA SC: CST refers to whether a defendant is capable of assisting in defense, not if he will. Also that inability to remember is not incompetency.
Smalls v. State (1980)
GA COA: Issue of CST is the same whether raised before, during, or after trial.
Aldridge v. State (1981)
GA SC: amnesia does not per se constitute IST. Instead, case-by-case
Aldridge 5 Points to Consider
GA SC: case-by-case considerations for amnesiac defendant
1) present ability to take stand on matters other than those he can’t remember
2) presence/absence other conditions that would hinder present ability to assist counsel
3) ability of defense and prosecution to reconstruct events w/o defendant’s testimony
4) strength of prosecution’s case against defendant
5) access to prosecution’s files in helping defendant prepare for his defense
Allanson v. State (1981)
GA SC: Reiterated CST criteria from Brown: “be aware of the charge, aware of its consequences, and able to communicate with his lawyer.”
Henderson v. State (1981)
GA COA: Lay witnesses may give testimony at a competency hearing, additionally, statements regarding mental alertness and not criminal misconduct may be admissible, even considering Miranda. Also held that other qualified doctors could give competency opinions, not just board-certified psychs.
Baker v. State (1982)
GA SC: Doesn’t matter if defense’s competency plea not in a timely manner, if question, state has to show that there’s sufficient evidence to say fully competent if not ordering CST eval. Once get to CST trial, then that’s when burden of proof on defendant by POTA goes into effect.
Godfrey v. Francis (1983)
GA SC: No constitutional right to have defense attorney present at CST eval.
Weirdo Godfrey Mention
GA SC: Since given full Miranda warnings at arrest, didn’t need to be told that he didn’t have to answer.
Ingram v. State (1984)
GA SC: Information from compelled psych examination by state is appropriate in sentencing phase as rebuttal to defense’s psych examination. 5A rights essentially waived by introducing your own psych eval.
Almond v. State (1986)
GA COA: Inappropriate to call defendant’s counsel as witness in competency trial to extract facts from his participation in attorney-client relationship. Also anything that deprived potentially incompetent defendant of full assistance of counsel, such as during competency hearing, was violation of due process.
Newman v. State (1988)
GA SC: Being found IST = presumption of incompetency, and re-eval of +CST restores presumption of competency. Also that previous exclusion of evidence in first CST eval is reversible error.
DBHDD v. Drust (1994)
DBHDD said couldn’t treat TBIs adequately, and xfers to DBHDD only for when due to mental illness or retardation. GA SC said bullocks and no support for DBHDD’s contention in GA Code.
DBHDD v. Long (1996)
GA SC: Superior court has authority to civilly commit pretrial IST detainee as long as procedures in Title 37 Chapter 3 used.
Sims v. State (2005) (10.4)
GA SC: More specific functions that comprise CST.
- Adequately consult with others
- Knows names/functions of those involved with case
- Reasonably understands rules, specific charges, penalties, and consequences of proceedings.
- Ability to recall/relate facts pertaining to his actions/whereabouts at certain times
- Assist counsel in locating and examining relevant witnesses
- Maintain a consistent defense.
- Listen to testimony of witnesses + inform his lawyer of distortions/misstatements
- Ability to make simple decisions in response to well-explained alternatives.
- Capable of testifying in own defense.
- Mental condition able to not deteriorate under stress of trial.
Sims v. State (2005) 2 Sources
Drope v. Missouri and LA case State v. Snyder (2004)
