T.J.M. v. State
925 So. 2d 440, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5047, 2006 WL 888153
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 7, 2006·No. No. 5D05-1267·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
AFFIRMED. See Jenkins v. State, 872 So.2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (To prevail on a motion to continue based upon witness unavailability, the moving party must show: (1) prior due diligence to obtain the witness’ presence; (2) that substantially favorable testimony would be forthcoming; (3) that the witness was available and willing to testify; and (4) that the denial of the continuance would cause material prejudice.).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
T.J.M. v. State, 925 So. 2d 440, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5047, 2006 WL 888153 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).
925 So. 2d 440 (T.J.M. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bernard Cheremont v. State
217 So. 3d 1181 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Walters v. Ocean Gate Phase I Condominium
925 So. 2d 440 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)