Monroe v. State, S22A0324

Monroe sought interlocutory review of the question whether a competency trial is a civil proceeding subject to OCGA § 24-7-702 (Rule 702), which incorporates the Daubert standard for expert testimony.
The trial court denied Monroe a pretrial hearing to litigate expert testimony under Rule 702 on the ground that he had not requested such a hearing before trial (a timeliness ruling).
On the merits, the trial court alternatively ruled that Daubert does not apply because competency proceedings are “quasi-criminal.”
The Supreme Court granted interlocutory review but discovered a procedural defect: Monroe did not challenge the trial court’s timeliness ground on appeal.
Because Monroe failed to attack an alternative basis for the judgment below, the Supreme Court vacated its grant, denied the application, and dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted.
A concurrence (joined by three justices) emphasized the importance of the Daubert-related question and noted unresolved constitutional questions about applying civil reliability standards to criminal proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether competency trials are civil proceedings subject to Rule 702/Daubert	Monroe: competency hearings are civil in nature and Daubert/Rule 702 should apply to exclude unreliable expert testimony	State: competency proceedings are quasi-criminal; Daubert standard does not apply	Not decided on the merits — appeal dismissed as improvidently granted because of procedural defect (see timeliness)
Whether Monroe was entitled to a Daubert hearing given trial-court timing rule	Monroe: entitled to litigate expert admissibility under Rule 702	State: Monroe waived/failed to timely request the hearing under trial-court interpretation of Rule 702	Trial court found Monroe failed to timely request hearing; Supreme Court declined to reach merits because Monroe did not challenge this alternative ground, resulting in dismissal

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (established federal Daubert standard for expert testimony admissibility)
Brown v. Fokes Props. 2002, Inc., 283 Ga. 231 (affirmance where appellant fails to attack alternative bases for judgment)
Mendez v. Moats, 310 Ga. 114 (vacation of writ as improvidently granted due to procedural defects)
Woods v. State, 310 Ga. 358 (discussion noting constitutional questions about applying civil reliability standards in criminal cases)
Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 283 Ga. 271 (Georgia precedent on expert-admissibility standards referenced in equal protection discussion)
Mitchell v. State, 301 Ga. 563 (extension of Mason to criminal-defendant claims referenced by the Court)