Waters v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Waters v. State

9 S.E.2d 716, 62 Ga. App. 720, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 416

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 17, 1940

Docket28282.

StatusPublished

This text of 9 S.E.2d 716 (Waters 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

Waters v. State, 9 S.E.2d 716, 62 Ga. App. 720, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 416 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

“Motions for continuance, made at the term at which the indictment is found, while addressed to the discretion of the court, stand upon a different footing from such motions made at a subsequent term. In such cases the discretion of the court should be liberally exercised in favor of a fair trial, no less than that the trial should be speedy; and every facility should be afforded a defendant for presenting his defense as fully as he might be able to do were the case tried at a subsequent term. Reasonable opportunity for the defendant to prepare his defense should not be sacrificed in the interest of speed.” Brooks v. State, 3 Ga. App. 458 (3) (60 S. E. 211).

Under the ruling quoted, and the facts of the instant case, the denial of the motion for a continuance, based upon the absence of two material witnesses for the defense, who lived in Tattnall County, Georgia, and were temporarily in Florida, was error; and that error rendered the further proceedings in the case nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Ga/rdner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

“Motions for continuance, made at the term at which the indictment is found, while addressed to the discretion of the court, stand upon a different footing from such motions made at a subsequent term. In such cases the discretion of the court should be liberally exercised in favor of a fair trial, no less than that the trial should be speedy; and every facility should be afforded a defendant for presenting his defense as fully as he might be able to do were the case tried at a subsequent term. Reasonable opportunity for the defendant to prepare his defense should not be sacrificed in the interest of speed.” Brooks v. State, 3 Ga. App. 458 (3) (60 S. E. 211).

Under the ruling quoted, and the facts of the instant case, the denial of the motion for a continuance, based upon the absence of two material witnesses for the defense, who lived in Tattnall County, Georgia, and were temporarily in Florida, was error; and that error rendered the further proceedings in the case nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Ga/rdner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 S.E.2d 716, 62 Ga. App. 720, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waters-v-state-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack