## Facts

- Jones was tried and convicted of four counts of cruelty to children under OCGA § 16-5-70.
- Before the merits trial, a jury determined Jones’s competency to stand trial.
- At the competency trial, the State presented a psychologist, Dr. Grigsby, and tendered him as an expert in clinical and forensic psychology.
- Defense counsel challenged Grigsby’s qualifications and sought to show bias based on his State employment and compensation.
- While overruling the defense objection, the judge stated he had previously qualified Grigsby, had heard him testify “on both sides,” and did “not believe this witness is biased.”
- When defense counsel pursued questions about Grigsby being paid by the State, the judge stopped the inquiry and remarked that the judge also “draw[s] a paycheck” from the State.
- The defense presented evidence (including testimony from Jones’s former attorney) that Jones was not competent, making expert credibility a central question for the competency jury.

## Issues

1. Whether the judge violated OCGA § 17-8-57 by commenting in a manner that expressed or intimated an opinion on the State expert’s credibility, impartiality, and the bias question during the competency trial.
2. Whether the judge violated OCGA § 24-9-64 by limiting cross-examination of the State expert about State employment and compensation offered to show bias.
3. Whether these errors required reversal of the convictions that followed the competency determination.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed Jones’s convictions and sentences.
- The court held the judge improperly bolstered the State’s expert and conveyed an opinion about his lack of bias, in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57.
- The court held the judge improperly curtailed “thorough and sifting” cross-examination into potential bias arising from the expert’s relationship with the State, in violation of OCGA § 24-9-64.
- Because the competency determination turned on witness credibility and expert weight, the errors required reversal and remand for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A trial judge may not express or intimate an opinion on what has been proved or on witness credibility; judicial comments that add the court’s personal view to contested fact questions violate OCGA § 17-8-57.
- Credibility determinations and the weight given to expert testimony are matters for the jury, including in a competency proceeding.
- A defendant is entitled to a thorough and sifting cross-examination of adverse witnesses under OCGA § 24-9-64, including reasonable inquiry into potential bias such as employment and compensation by the State.
- Even if unintended, judicial remarks or restrictions that influence the jury’s evaluation of an expert’s impartiality and credibility can constitute reversible error when those issues are central.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed because, during the competency trial, the judge improperly vouched for the State’s expert and prevented meaningful bias cross-examination, intruding on the jury’s exclusive role to assess credibility and the weight of expert testimony.


Jones v. State, 375 S.E.2d 648 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)