In deciding whether the trial court should have granted a continuance in order to procure the attendance of the absent defense witnesses, it should be noted initially that a continuance in a criminal case is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, the exercise of which will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly abused. Fletcher v. State, 291 Ala. 67, 277 So.2d 882 (1973); King v. State, 435 So.2d 769 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Pritchett v. State, 445 So.2d 984 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). The above stated rule clearly applies to cases where the continuance is sought due to an absent witness.
Robinson v. State, 560 So.2d 1130 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); Ex parte Saranthus, 501 So.2d 1256 (Ala. 1986). A motion for a continuance to secure witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, King v. State, 435 So.2d 769 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), and the denial of such a motion will only be reversed upon a showing of a gross abuse of that discretion. McFarland v. State, 581 So.2d 1249 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); McLeod v. State, 581 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). On the day originally set for trial, May 6, 1991, counsel for the appellant moved for a continuance so that he could have an opportunity to locate various witnesses to testify at a hearing on his motion to suppress.
"In deciding whether the trial court should have granted a continuance in order to procure the attendance of the absent defense witnesses, it should be noted initially that a continuance in a criminal case is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, the exercise of which will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly abused. Fletcher v. State, 291 Ala. 67, 277 So.2d 882 (1973); King v. State, 435 So.2d 769 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Pritchett v. State, 445 So.2d 984 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). The above-stated rule clearly applies to cases where the continuance is sought due to an absent witness.
"In general, motions for continuances in criminal cases are matters within the discretion of the trial court. King v. State, 435 So.2d 769 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). The measure of impropriety which must be shown by an appellant to hold the court in error for denial of a motion for continuance of a criminal trial is gross abuse.
In the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion by the trial court, this court will not disturb the trial court's ruling. Daniels v. State, 437 So.2d 614 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Dawkins v. State, 455 So.2d 220, 221 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Carroll v. State, 445 So.2d 952, 954 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); King v. State, 435 So.2d 769, 770 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). Under certain circumstances, the refusal by the trial court to grant a motion for continuance so that retained counsel could be present does not constitute an abuse of discretion. United States v. Barrentine, 591 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 990, 100 S.Ct. 521, 62 L.Ed.2d 419 (1979); Canada v. State, 421 So.2d 140 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).
In general, motions for continuances in criminal cases are matters within the discretion of the trial court. King v. State, 435 So.2d 769 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). The measure of impropriety which must be shown by an appellant to hold the court in error for denial of a motion for continuance of a criminal trial is gross abuse. The right to choose counsel is a shield and part of an accused's due process rights.
In deciding whether the trial court should have granted a continuance in order to procure the attendance of an absent defense witness, it should be noted initially that defense counsel did not ask for such a continuance in any form. Further, a continuance in a criminal case is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, the exercise of which will not be disturbed unless clearly abused. Fletcher v. State, 291 Ala. 67, 277 So.2d 882 (1973); Wilson v. State, 384 So.2d 1243 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980); Bailey v. State, 398 So.2d 406 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981); King v. State, 435 So.2d 769 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983); Pritchett v. State, 445 So.2d 984 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984). This rule clearly applies to cases where the continuance is sought due to an absent witness.