Morris v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Morris v. State

16 S.E.2d 908, 66 Ga. App. 37, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 107

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 1941

Docket29083.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 16 S.E.2d 908 (Morris v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morris v. State, 16 S.E.2d 908, 66 Ga. App. 37, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 107 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

In this case the only assignment of error is on the order overruling the certiorari which complained that the judge abused his discretion in denying the motion of the defendant for a continuance based on the ground of the absence of two material witnesses. It appears that since the pendency of the charges against him the defendant had had several months in which to subpoena the witnesses and insure their attendance at his trial, and that during that time he had made no effort to that end. It does not suffice to extenuate his lack of diligence that he did not know *38 just what the State’s witnesses would testify until it was too late to summon the witnesses, one of whom was without the jurisdiction of the court and the other was not known to be then accessible. In this connection see King v. State, supra. See also Code, § 81-1410, relatively to the necessity resting on the defendant to bring his motion substantially within its provisions, which the defendant in several particulars failed to do.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and, MacIntyre, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gardner, J.

In this case the only assignment of error is on the order overruling the certiorari which complained that the judge abused his discretion in denying the motion of the defendant for a continuance based on the ground of the absence of two material witnesses. It appears that since the pendency of the charges against him the defendant had had several months in which to subpoena the witnesses and insure their attendance at his trial, and that during that time he had made no effort to that end. It does not suffice to extenuate his lack of diligence that he did not know *38 just what the State’s witnesses would testify until it was too late to summon the witnesses, one of whom was without the jurisdiction of the court and the other was not known to be then accessible. In this connection see King v. State, supra. See also Code, § 81-1410, relatively to the necessity resting on the defendant to bring his motion substantially within its provisions, which the defendant in several particulars failed to do.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and, MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.E.2d 908, 66 Ga. App. 37, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-state-gactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack