CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...
Court Control of Proceedings
......Continuances
20 Cards On This Topic:
Trial court properly denied D's motions for a continuance until media coverage of O.J. Simpson case waned where D produced no evidence showing any juror considered or was influenced by Simpson coverage.
When one coD’s trial is continued to date w/in PC 1382’s 10-day grace period, state’s strong interests in joinder provide good cause to continue the trial for all properly joined coDs to the same date within the 10-day period.
No abuse of discretion in denying D's motion for a continuance where counsel's expressed needs could be reasonably met without it and court considered the inconvenience to prospective jurors.
No error in denying continuance for E's surrebutal where E never barred from returning to the stand, no dispute arose as to info. E relayed at trial, and no evidence these collateral matters would have undermined E's credibility.
No abuse of discretion in denying continuance to examine tape where court made reasonable assessment that due to loud road noise on the tape, no further conversation would be recovered through audio enhancement.
D failed to show good cause for PC 1050 continuance just prior to penalty phase and court did not abuse its discretion in denying it.
No abuse of discretion in denying D 1-day continuance at end of guilt phase where court ordered DA's penalty case to begin next day ••but•• allowed D time to arrange his Ws' transportation and did not compel D to proceed without them.
No abuse of discretion in denying continuance b/c of article about D's expert psych witness' cruelty to animals arrest, as no substantial likelihood jurors who became aware of publicity were actually biased.
No abuse of discretion in denying continuance for D to subpoena Ws, which he claimed was difficult due to lack of funds, where Court found lack of diligence and Ws' testimony would have been of little help to D.
No abuse of discretion in refusing continuance to wait for more info on D's PD's heart attack where there was little to indicate the issue of PD's fitness to try D's case would be resolved in near future.
No abuse of discretion in denying continuance for D to conduct public opinion survey to support claim of jury pool taint and necessity of venue change.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing continuance where counsel not diligent in securing Ws and not ready to proceed at promised time despite ample notice and opportunity.
Trial court not required to grant Ds a lengthy continuance b/c of their attorney-legislator where there is an express exception to the legislative directive making such continuance mandatory.
As D could not complain that his right to a speedy prelim. hearing was violated or show any other prejudice, abuse of discretion to deny DA’s continuance request and dismiss the charges.
Four continuances of D's trial were proper under PC 1050(g)(2) because trial was “in progress” in other cases and because court was not prohibited from granting multiple, serial 10-day continuances.
While D attempted on appeal to establish good cause, he gave trial ct. no explanation for his delay in requesting 2d mental health evaluation and thus made no showing of diligent trial preparation or good cause for a continuance.
Admin Hearings: Where P received BAC results just before hearing, and was denied a continuance, he was deprived of the opportunity to present a meaningful defense to license suspension proceeding.
Because a continuance is discretionary under CCP 527.6, and no contention of abuse of discretion or prejudice by denial of continuance, D not entitled to reversal of judgment after civil harassment PRO issued.
Abuse of discretion to continue noticed hearing for 4 days instead of statutorily required period (80 days for service by mail), and court erred in ruling on SJ motion after deciding Ds made good cause showing.
Trial court abused its discretion in refusing to continue complicated medical malpractice case and forcing County to proceed to trial without counsel.