Curry v. State, 71378
| Citation | 340 S.E.2d 250,177 Ga.App. 609 |
| Decision Date | 30 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 71378,71378 |
| Parties | CURRY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
G. Terry Jackson, Savannah, for appellant.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., Dist. Atty., David T. Lock, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted for armed robbery. He was tried before a jury and found guilty of robbery by intimidation. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered on the jury's verdict.
1. At the call of his trial, appellant moved for a continuance based upon the absence of his sole alibi witness. The motion was denied and this ruling is enumerated as error.
Ledford v. State, 173 Ga.App. 474, 476, 326 S.E.2d 834 (1985). The record in the instant case shows that a warrant for appellant's arrest was issued in June of 1983. He was indicted on October 14, 1983. His case was called for trial on May 16, 1984. Nonetheless, appellant's absent alibi witness had not been subpoenaed. In fact, appellant could not even account for the witness' current whereabouts. The witness had "apparently changed addresses and subsequently joined the armed forces" and was believed to be in either Florence or Columbia, South Carolina "the best we can determine." A relative of the absent witness had been unable to furnish a current address. Appellant did not show that the witness could be procured by the next term of court, only that "mutual friends" would be able to locate the witness "in Columbia within at least three days." Appellant did not specify that his motion was not being made for purposes of delay.
On these facts, there is no basis for holding the denial of the motion was an abuse of the trial court's discretion. See generally Morris v. State, 66 Ga.App. 37, 16 S.E.2d 908 (1941); Watts v. State, 20 Ga.App. 182 (1), 92 S.E. 966 (1917); Barlow v. State, 24 Ga.App. 122, 99 S.E. 798 (1919); Howard v. State, 26 Ga.App. 431, 106 S.E. 732 (1921); Tomlin v. State, 110 Ga. 268, 34 S.E. 845 (1899).
2. Asserting that it was his sole defense, appellant enumerates as error the failure of the trial court to give, without request, an instruction as to alibi.
Johnson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McTaggart v. State
...upon an absent witness is absolute, so that the failure to substantially comply is a ground to deny a continuance. Curry v. State, 177 Ga. App. 609, 340 S.E.2d 250 (1986); Brown v. State, 169 Ga.App. 520, 313 S.E.2d 777 (1984); McNabb v. State, 69 Ga.App. 885, 27 S.E.2d 246 (1943). The tria......
-
McGuire v. State, 74820
...in denying the continuance because defendant had not complied with the statute. But here we have compliance. In Curry v. State, 177 Ga.App. 609(1), 340 S.E.2d 250 (1986), the absent witness had not even been subpoenaed. The same is true in Brown v. State, 169 Ga.App. 520, 521(1), 313 S.E.2d......
-
Matthews v. State
...two to three hours before the crime was alleged to have occurred. 4. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Curry v. State, 177 Ga.App. 609(1), 340 S.E.2d 250 (1986). 5. See Rivers v. State, 250 Ga. 288, 300(8), 298 S.E.2d 10 6. (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Seese v. State, 235 Ga.App. 1......
-
Franklin v. State
...based upon the absence of a witness." (Cit.)' Ledford v. State, 173 Ga.App. 474, 476 (326 SE2d 834) (1985)." Curry v. State, 177 Ga.App. 609(1), 340 S.E.2d 250. In the case sub judice, defense counsel moved for a continuance based on the absence of a defense witness who had been summoned to......