Opinion ID: 2130950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did trial court err in overruling defendant's motion for continuance?

Text: Defendant contends trial court deprived her of effective assistance of counsel by overruling two motions for continuance filed seven days and four days, respectively, before trial. Our civil rules apply. § 780.2, The Code. Rule 183(a), Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part: A continuance may be allowed for any cause not growing out of the fault or negligence of the applicant, which satisfies the court that substantial justice will be more nearly obtained.    The grant or refusal of a continuance lies within trial court's sound discretion. State v. Youngbear, 229 N.W.2d 728, 734 (Iowa 1975), cert. den., 423 U.S. 1018, 96 S.Ct. 455, 46 L.Ed.2d 390 (1975). On review we will not interfere unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Hines, 225 N.W.2d 156, 160 (Iowa 1975). A recital of the relevant circumstances surrounding these motions would add nothing to our jurisprudence. Although trial court would have been justified in granting either or both of the motions, defendant has not demonstrated overruling of these motions constituted a clear abuse of discretion. We hold this assignment of error is without merit.