Najee Foreman v. State
A21A0554
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Foreman was indicted on aggravated sexual battery and child molestation and his competency to stand trial was questioned.
- After bench proceedings and Department evaluations, the trial court found Foreman incompetent with neuro-cognitive and memory disorders and concluded he was not restorable in the foreseeable future; the court released him on bond with conditions.
- The State later moved to revoke bond, alleging new criminal conduct and violations, and sought reevaluation and civil commitment based on danger to the community.
- Following a hearing, the trial court ordered Foreman involuntarily civilly committed for up to one year (renewable under statutory limits), finding clear and convincing evidence he met civil-commitment criteria.
- Foreman appealed, arguing the trial court lost jurisdiction to order civil commitment after previously finding he did not meet commitment criteria and releasing him.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the competency statute permitted rehearing the competency/commitment issue and that the trial court retained jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Foreman’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to civilly commit Foreman after earlier finding he did not meet commitment criteria and releasing him | Foreman: once the court released him under OCGA § 17-7-130(e)(2)(B)(i), jurisdiction terminated and the court could not later revisit civil-commitment eligibility | State: the competency statute (including subsections (f) and (g)) allows rehearing and preserves the court’s authority to revisit competency and civil-commitment issues after release | Court: affirmed — statutory text and structure show release on bond does not terminate jurisdiction; OCGA § 17-7-130(g) permits motions for rehearing and the court may again consider civil commitment |
Key Cases Cited
- MacBeth v. State, 304 Ga. App. 466 (review of lack-of-jurisdiction is de novo)
- State v. Rich, 348 Ga. App. 467 (statutory-construction principles; apply plain meaning when statute is unambiguous)
- Warren v. State, 297 Ga. 810 (describing collateral-order doctrine factors)
- Premier Health Care Investments, LLC v. UHS of Anchor, L.P., 310 Ga. 32 (constitutional-doubt canon: prefer constitutional interpretation if statute is genuinely ambiguous)