Opinion ID: 1207145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Refusal to Grant a Continuance

Text: At the in camera hearing conducted on the morning of the first day of trial, counsel for the appellant requested a continuance to enable them to contact and interview certain witnesses whose testimony the appellant felt was material to his defense. Counsel stated that the appellant had first given them the names and addresses of these witnesses and requested their presence at trial on the previous Friday afternoon after the hearing on the motion for substitution of counsel. Counsel further stated that the witnesses apparently lived in North Carolina, although they were not certain of that fact, and that all other defense witnesses had been subpoenaed. The motion for a continuance was denied as untimely. A motion for a continuance based on the absence of a material witness is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on such motion will not be disturbed unless it is clearly wrong and it appears that such discretion has been abused. Syllabus Point 1, State v. Chaffin, 156 W.Va. 264, 192 S.E.2d 728 (1972). Syllabus Point 3, State v. Vance, W.Va., 285 S.E.2d 437 (1981). To warrant a continuance on the basis of the absence of a material witness, it is necessary to show the use of due diligence to procure the attendance of the witness and also the materiality and importance of his evidence to the issues to be tried. State v. Burdette, 135 W.Va. 312, 63 S.E.2d 69 (1951). Id., at 442. In the instant case there was no showing of due diligence to secure the attendance of the witnesses the appellant requested. Counsel for the appellant had apparently not intended to call those witnesses until the appellant requested their attendance on the Friday prior to trial. Counsel subsequently stated that they were not certain where the witnesses lived and that they were unaware of any method to obtain service on such short notice. Moreover, it appears that the testimony of the absent witnesses was, in substance, the same as that of the defense witness which had been subpoenaed to testify. Consequently, we find no error in the trial court's denial of the appellant's motion for a continuance. In conclusion, for the reasons stated herein, we find no error in the proceedings had against the appellant in the Circuit Court of Logan County which would warrant reversal of the appellant's conviction. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed.