Sutton v. State
168 S.E. 911, 46 Ga. App. 664, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 170
Opinion
On the call of the case the defendant made a motion for a continuance, based upon the absence of an alleged material witness for his defense. The motion complied with all the requirements of section 987 of the Penal Code of 1910, and there was no counter-showing by the State. Under the foregoing facts the refusal .to grant the continuance was error. In the motion for a new trial counsel for the defendant properly assigned error on such refusal. Exceptions pendente lite to such a judgment are not necessary.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sutton v. State, 168 S.E. 911, 46 Ga. App. 664, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 170 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).
168 S.E. 911 (Sutton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Miller v. State
430 S.E.2d 159 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993)
Frost v. State
86 S.E.2d 646 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)