O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-10-68 (2019)

Proof; disposition

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The court may receive proof by depositions, oral testimony, sworn affidavits, or other evidence.

(b) The taking of depositions shall be governed by Code Sections 9-11-26 through 9-11-32 and 9-11-37.

(c) If a sworn affidavit is to be introduced into evidence by either party, the party intending to introduce such an affidavit shall cause it to be served upon the opposing party at least five days in advance of the date set for a hearing in the case or, in the event a hearing is set less than five days from the date of the filing of the application, as soon as possible so that opposing counsel has the opportunity to review the affidavit prior to the hearing. The affidavit so served shall be accompanied by notice of the party’s intention to introduce it into evidence. The superior court judge considering the application may resolve disputed issues of fact upon the basis of sworn affidavits standing by themselves.

(d) After reviewing the pleadings and evidence offered at the hearing, the judge of the superior court hearing the case shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the judgment is based. The findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be recorded as part of the record in the case.

(e) If the court finds in favor of the applicant by finding that the applicant has proven his or her mental incompetence to be executed by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall enter an appropriate order with respect to any scheduled execution time period and shall enter such supplementary orders as necessary and proper. If the court denies the application, the court shall direct that immediate telephonic notification be given to the parties and any stay presently entered under this article shall be dissolved instanter.

History

Code 1981, § 17-10-68, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1003, § 2.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1999–1999 · leading case: Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1999).
Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 2× “Exhaustive research reveals that the vast majority of jurisdictions apply a similar rule either by statute or case law.”
Heck Van Tran v. State of TN (Tenn. 1999). “1999); Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-68 (d) (1997); Kan.”
— 17-10-68(d) — 1 case
Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1999). “Exhaustive research reveals that the vast majority of jurisdictions apply a similar rule either by statute or case law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.