Court of Appeals of Georgia Finds Victim w/Bipolar Disorder Was Competent to Testify

Federal Rule of Evidence 601 provides that

Every person is competent to be a witness unless these rules provide otherwise. But in a civil case, state law governs the witness’s competency regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision.

The Advisory Committee Note to Rule 601 explains that

This general ground-clearing eliminates all grounds of incompetency not specifically recognized in the succeeding rules of this Article. Included among the grounds thus abolished are religious belief, conviction of crime, and connection with the litigation as a party or interested person or spouse of a party or interested person. With the exception of the so-called Dead Man’s Acts, American jurisdictions generally have ceased to recognize these grounds.

Under this broad rule of competence, almost all witnesses are competent to testify, including those with mental health conditions.

In Jefferson v. State, 2021 WL 364221 (Ga.App. 2021), Orlando Jefferson was convicted of family violence aggravated assault and family violence battery. After he was convicted, Jefferson appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the victim was incompetent to testify against him because of “the victim’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder,  drug abuse, cancer treatment, , and certain comments she made during her.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia disagreed, concluding that

Rule 601 provides: “Except as otherwise provided in [Title 24, Chapter 6], every person is competent to be a witness.” Embodied in Rule 601 is the presumption that witnesses are competent to testify….And there is nothing in the record that would rebut that presumption in this case. While Jefferson notes that the victim had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, the victim testified that she took medication to control her condition. In any event, suffering from a mental health condition is not one of the statutory exceptions to Rule 601. Indeed, “Rule 601 allows one not mentally competent to testify, and it assumes that jurors are capable of evaluating a witness’s testimony in light of the fact that [s]he is not mentally competent.”…Hence, the fact that the victim had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, standing alone, did not require the exclusion of her testimony, but rather was a matter that the jury could consider in weighing her testimony and assessing her credibility.

Furthermore, despite Jefferson’s suggestion on appeal, the record reflects that the victim was able to coherently describe the incidents leading to the charged crimes based on her personal knowledge of those matters and was responsive to the questions asked to her. Likewise, the record is devoid of any evidence reflecting that her history of drug and alcohol abuse or her chemotherapy treatment for her cancer affected her competency to testify in any manner whatsoever….Nor is there any allegation that the victim failed to understand the nature of the oath administered to her. 

-CM