Cade v. State
Cade v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
While this court will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of the trial court in refusing to. grant an application for continuance because of'the absence of a witness, when it appears that the witness is beyond the jurisdiction of the court, yet there are times when the trial court should allow a continuance, even when it appears that the absent witness cannot be reached with process at the time the application is made. In this case the ’indictment was returned on the 28th of June, 1909, and the trial set for the 30th, just two days after the indictment was found. The uncontroverted affidavit of defendant, made on the application for continuance, shows that the-absent witness is a very necessary witness in so far as his case
We think the court erred, in view of the facts of this case, in refusing the application for continuance; and the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Charles Cade v. State of Mississippi
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Ceimxnad, Law and Pkoceduee. Unlawful cohaditation. Witnesses. Ahsence from state. Continuances. A defendant should be allowed a reasonable time within which to procure the attendance of his witnesses, and, where the-indictment was found only two days before the case was called for trial, the temporary absence from the state of a material witness does not warrant the denial of an application for a continuance, because of his absence.