Opinion ID: 2333091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was there error in refusing an adjournment?

Text: Intimately related to the motion for a change of venue is the argument contending not enough time was allowed to prepare and present the motion itself. When the motion was made on April 2, 1954, the assignment judge set April 7 as the date for the submission of proof. Although the defendants say this was insufficient time, admittedly it was adequate for them to appeal without favorable results to the Appellate Division. They appeared on the last date before the assignment judge without proofs and asked further time. It was granted, the judge advising he would be available for that purpose April 14, which was nearly two weeks from the date of the original application. But it is contended the short date substantially prejudiced the defendants. Unseemingly and prejudicially unnecessary haste is not conducive to the equitable and proper administration of justice, but the factual situation here existing does not come within these prohibitions. Twelve days to prepare proofs showing justification for a change of venue seems not too limited, especially when counsel in a summary manner tersely state in open court that the time is too short but do not inform the court in what respect they are unable to comply or what proof they are attempting to secure or how they would be prevented from obtaining it by reason of the time limitation. The record shows the defendants failed to produce before the assignment judge a single witness, a single affidavit or a scintilla of evidence to substantiate their contention. Nor is there presently before us any persuasive proof that the time offered to present the proofs on this motion was insufficient. Such matters are within the sound discretion of the trial court and their denial will not lead to a reversal unless it appears the defendants suffered manifest wrong or were prejudiced. State v. Lynch, supra ; State v. Juliano, 103 N.J.L. 663 ( E. & A. 1927); State v. Zied, 116 N.J.L. 234 ( E. & A. 1936). Our conclusion is further fortified by what transpired more than a month later when on May 17, 1954 counsel renewed their application for a change of venue to the trial court. The only evidence they offered was a copy of the six resolutions already referred to passed by the grand jury, plus two resolutions adopted by the Township of Union and excerpts from various newspaper articles concerning the crime and its participants. There is nothing demonstrating that these documents and clippings could not have been presented within the time limits originally set by the assignment judge. In fact, the contrary seems well established by the record when it reveals the limited proof upon which counsel intended to rely.