Curry v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. McGuire v. State

    363 S.E.2d 850 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that appellant had not waived claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when trial court appointed trial attorney to represent appellant on appeal and instructed the attorney not to raise claims of ineffective assistance against himself

    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 777) (1984).

  2. Griggs v. State

    432 S.E.2d 591 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 7 times
    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

    " (Cit.)' Ledford v. State, 173 Ga. App. 474, 476 ( 326 S.E.2d 834) (1985)." Curry v. State, 177 Ga. App. 609 (1) ( 340 S.E.2d 250). This Code section provides, in pertinent part, that "[i]n all applications for continuances upon the ground of the absence of a witness, it shall be shown to the court . . . that he has been subpoenaed [and] that he does not reside more than 100 miles from the place of trial by the nearest practical route. . . ." OCGA ยง 17-8-25.

  3. Matthews v. State

    285 Ga. App. 859 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 3 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Curry v. State, 177 Ga. App. 609 (1) ( 340 SE2d 250) (1986). 2.

  4. McTaggart v. State

    225 Ga. App. 359 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding that the trial court did not err by failing to specify at the pretrial hearing the purpose for which the similar transaction was admitted, because the court made a determination regarding admissibility under Williams and gave an instruction at trial that limited the juryโ€™s consideration of the evidence to legitimate purposes

    Each of the statutory grounds for a continuance based upon an absent witness is absolute, so that the failure to substantially comply is grounds 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 trial court is entitled to know what relevant and material evidence the witness will prove in order to exercise discretion in ruling.

  5. Redd v. State

    222 Ga. App. 595 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 2 times

    See Shaw v. State, 163 Ga. App. 615, 618 (2) ( 294 S.E.2d 676) (1982) (right to compulsory process does not guarantee service of subpoena), rev'd on other gnds., 251 Ga. 109 ( 303 S.E.2d 448) (1983). Because Redd did not show that the witness had been subpoenaed, that she lived within 100 miles of the court, or that he expected to procure her testimony at the next term of court, as required by OCGA ยง 17-8-25, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance. Curry v. State, 177 Ga. App. 609 (1) ( 340 S.E.2d 250) (1986). 2.

  6. Franklin v. State

    431 S.E.2d 733 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 3 times

    " (Cit.)' Ledford v. State, 173 Ga. App. 474, 476 ( 326 S.E.2d 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 court via an order for production of an inmate from the state prison system.

  7. Dorsey v. State

    416 S.E.2d 879 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 4 times

    " (Cit.)' [Cit.]" Curry v. State, 177 Ga. App. 609 (1) ( 340 S.E.2d 250) (1986). Under the circumstances of this case, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of appellant's motion for continuance.

  8. Pitts v. State

    415 S.E.2d 58 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)

    ]" Brown v. State, 169 Ga. App. 520, 521 (1) ( 313 S.E.2d 777) (1984). See also Curry v. State, 177 Ga. App. 609 (1) ( 340 S.E.2d 250) (1986). "`A motion to continue is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and this court will not interfere unless it is clearly shown that he has abused his discretion.

  9. Garrett v. State

    414 S.E.2d 693 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 8 times

    "On these facts, there is no basis for holding the denial of the motion was an abuse of the trial court's discretion. [Cits.]" Curry v. State, 177 Ga. App. 609 (1) ( 340 S.E.2d 250) (1986). See also Thompkins v. State, 257 Ga. 113, 114 (2) ( 356 S.E.2d 207) (1987).

  10. Eze v. State

    393 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 2 times

    " (Cit.)' [Cit.]" Curry v. State, 177 Ga. App. 609 (1) ( 340 S.E.2d 250) (1986). Appellant concedes that these requirements were not met, but urges that the denial of his motion was nevertheless erroneous because the State had been previously granted five continuances.