830 S.E.2d 565
Ga. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Lance Beach, proceeding pro se at trial, was convicted by a jury of one count of child molestation for touching his 12‑year‑old great‑niece over her clothes while she sat on a couch. The victim made an immediate outcry via text and to family; a sexual assault exam showed no injuries.
- Pretrial, the court ordered mental evaluations after Beach exhibited delusional/paranoid behavior; psychiatrists diagnosed schizophrenia and the court found him incompetent and authorized involuntary medication to restore competency.
- After treatment, a Georgia Regional report (June 2015) indicated restored competency; the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc competency finding and conducted Faretta colloquies, allowing Beach to waive counsel and represent himself at trial with standby counsel.
- Beach did not object at trial when recordings were admitted that contained passing references to a prior‑bad‑act allegation (previously ruled inadmissible); Beach had asked the court to admit the full interview rather than seek redaction.
- Posttrial, Beach appealed arguing (1) the court failed to conduct the required competency hearing after DBHDD’s finding of restored competency and (2) the court plainly erred by admitting unredacted references to a previously excluded prior bad act.
Issues
| Issue | Beach's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by not holding a bench or special jury competency hearing after DBHDD found competency restored | Court should have held the mandatory OCGA § 17‑7‑130(d) competency hearing before trial; the nunc pro tunc order based on a year‑old evaluation was insufficient | Trial court adequately evaluated competency through hearings and Faretta colloquies; proceeded properly | Court held the statutory § 17‑7‑130(d) procedure was not followed and remanded for a competency hearing (affirmed in part, reversed in part) |
| Whether admission of recordings mentioning a previously excluded prior bad act was plain error | Admission of those recordings (without redaction) violated the exclusion order and was plain error that affected substantial rights | Beach invited admission by requesting the interview be admitted; he waived redaction and trial error review is precluded | Court found outcome likely affected but rejected plain error review because Beach invited/admitted the evidence and thus failed first/second prongs of plain‑error test |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self‑representation requires knowing and voluntary waiver)
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (standards for involuntary medication to restore competency)
- Baker v. State, 250 Ga. 187 (1982) (remand for competency procedures where warranted)