State v. Chapman, 322 Ga. App. 82

Chapman was indicted on two counts of aggravated child molestation and one count of child molestation.
Chapman pled incompetency to stand trial and demanded a jury determination under OCGA § 17-7-130 (b) (2).
A jury found Chapman competent, and a separate jury found him guilty on all counts in the criminal trial.
After verdict, the trial court, sua sponte, declared a mistrial on the criminal charges and granted a new trial on Chapman’s competency.
The State argued the mistrial after verdict was void; the court instead treated the order as a sua sponte grant of a new trial on guilt or innocence.
The trial court’s order admitting Dr. Duke’s testimony was deemed highly prejudicial and not properly connected to Chapman’s conduct, contributing to the decision to grant a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the mistrial after verdict void?	Chapman	Chapman	Order treated as a new trial on guilt; not void
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial on guilt due to Dr. Duke’s testimony?	State	Chapman	No abuse; trial court balanced probative value and prejudice; admissibility within discretion
Is the competency issue moot, and may Chapman be relitigated on retrial?	State	Chapman	Competency issue is moot; Chapman may reassert competency upon retrial

State v. Sumlin, 281 Ga. 183 (2006) (mistrial after verdict void)
State v. Jorgensen, 181 Ga. App. 502 (1987) (mistrial cannot be granted after verdict)
McCullers v. Harrell, 298 Ga. App. 798 (2009) (substance over nomenclature; sua sponte new trial allowed)
State v. Freeman, 272 Ga. 813 (2000) (look to substance of order to discern effect)
Baker v. State, 250 Ga. 187 (1982) (new trial on competency may affect verdict; relates to remedy rule)
Hinton v. State, 280 Ga. 811 (2006) (trial court discretion in balancing probative value and prejudice)
Smith v. State, 255 Ga. 685 (1986) (probative value vs. prejudice; standard for admissibility)