O.C.G.A.
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.
(a) When information becomes known to the court sufficient to raise a bona fide doubt regarding the accused’s mental competency to stand trial, the court has a duty, sua sponte, to inquire into the accused’s mental competency to stand trial. The court may order the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities to conduct an evaluation of the accused’s competency. If the court determines that it is necessary to have a trial on the issue of competency, the court shall follow the procedures set forth in Code Section 17-7-130. The court’s order shall set forth those facts which give rise to its bona fide doubt as to the accused’s mental competency to stand trial. The evaluation of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities shall be submitted to the court, and the court shall submit such evaluation to the attorney for the accused or, if pro se, to the accused, but otherwise, the report shall remain under seal.
(b) If the court orders a competency evaluation and the accused serves notice of a special plea of mental incompetency to stand trial or raises the issue of insanity, the court shall release the competency evaluation to the prosecuting attorney. Such evaluation shall not be released to any other person absent a court order.
History
Code 1981, § 17-7-129, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 372, § 1/HB 421.
Annotations
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, §§ 35 et seq., 798. 31A Am. Jur. 2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence, §§ 117, 136.
C.J.S. - 31A C.J.S., Evidence, § 225. 32 C.J.S., Evidence, §§ 763 et seq., 885 et seq.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case:
Warren v. State, 778 S.E.2d 749 (Ga. 2015).
Warren v. State, 778 S.E.2d 749 (Ga. 2015).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 17-7-129, 17-7-130 (b) (1). On May 9, 2013, after receiving a report on that evaluation from Dr.”
Beach v. The State., 830 S.E.2d 565 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-129 (a), [w]hen information becomes known to the court sufficient to raise a bona fide doubt regarding the accused's mental competency to stand trial, the court has a duty, sua sponte, to inquire into the accused's mental competency to stand trial.”
Carter v. State (Ga. 2026).
· cites it 14× “But the Act enacting the changes to OCGA §§ 17-7-129 and 17-7-130 included a provision stating, “This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2025, and shall apply to any motions made or hearings or trials commenced on or after such date.”
Carter v. State (Ga. 2026).
· cites it 14× “But the Act enacting the changes to OCGA §§ 17-7-129 and 17-7-130 included a provision stating, “This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2025, and shall apply to any motions made or hearings or trials commenced on or after such date.”
Coleman Riley v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “Pretermitting whether Riley preserved his competency argument, and in light of the fact that trial courts have an independent obligation to ensure the defendant is competent to stand trial if there is any cause for concern, we address this issue on the merits.”
Cerron Lavar Hutchins v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “]” OCGA § 17-7-129 (a). This sua sponte duty arises only when information becomes known to it, prior to or at the time of the trial, sufficient to raise a bona fide doubt regarding the defendant’s competence.”
Russell E. Crawford v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 17-7-129 (a) provides that [w]hen information becomes known to the court sufficient to raise a bona fide doubt regarding the accused mental competency to stand trial, the court has a duty, sua sponte, to inquire into the accused’s mental competency to stand trial.”
Desmond Legrant Staley, Jr. v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “”10 Thus, if the trial court possessed information sufficient to raise a bona fide doubt regarding Staley’s competency to stand trial, it was required to sua sponte hold a competency hearing, and Staley has not waived a challenge to the trial court’s failure to do so.”
Kenyatta Cosby v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 17-7-129 (a). “The salient question is whether the trial court received information which, objectively considered, should reasonably have raised a doubt about the defendant’s competency and alerted the trial court to the possibility that the defendant could…”
— 17-7-129(a) — 2 cases
Carter v. State (Ga. 2026).
“But the Act enacting the changes to OCGA §§ 17-7-129 and 17-7-130 included a provision stating, “This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2025, and shall apply to any motions made or hearings or trials commenced on or after such date.”
Carter v. State (Ga. 2026).
“But the Act enacting the changes to OCGA §§ 17-7-129 and 17-7-130 included a provision stating, “This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2025, and shall apply to any motions made or hearings or trials commenced on or after such date.”
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.