(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bailey v. State, 309 Ga.App. 473, 474, 710 S.E.2d 656 (2011). Each of these requirements “must be met before an appellate court may review the exercise of the trial court's discretion in denying a motion for continuance based upon the absence of a witness.”
See OCGA § 17–8–25.See Bailey v. State, 309 Ga.App. 473, 474–75, 710 S.E.2d 656 (2011) (holding that denial of defendant's request for a continuance to secure witness's attendance was not abuse of discretion given that defendant never asserted that he would be able to procure the witness's testimony during an adjournment); Knox v. State, 227 Ga.App. 447, 448, 489 S.E.2d 582 (1997) (holding that the denial of request for continuance due to absence of witness was justified by defendant's failure to satisfy requirements that witness could be procured by next term of court); Griggs v. State, 208 Ga.App. 768, 769–70(2), 432 S.E.2d 591 (1993) (ruling that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuance given that defendant could not show that witness resided within 100 miles of the place of trial). 4.