Opinion ID: 2055714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: Immediately after Donald Griffin, a patron of the tavern who was present at the time of the Robbery, was sworn as a witness in the State's case-in-chief, Crenshaw's defense counsel objected based on the fact that I tried to depose this man on at least two occasions, and he never appeared. I now find myself confronted with a witness that despite my best efforts, I have not had the opportunity to investigate or hear what he has to say. Defendant contends that he, too, was deprived of the opportunity to depose witness Griffin and that he should have been granted adequate time, following a mid-trial deposition, to investigate the witness and his story. Defendant argues that in the absence of such time to prepare, witness Griffin should not have been permitted to testify at trial. The record discloses that Defendant did not specifically move for a continuance nor object to the Court's permitting Griffin to testify: Trial Court: All Right, there is no motion for a continuance    [H]aving had an opportunity to depose the witness, the Court will now allow him to testify. Mr. Olson [defendant's counsel], do you have anything you wish to say? Mr. Olson: Nothing I wish to add. He didn't give me anything I didn't already have. Defendant, therefore, acquiesced in the court's ruling. Furthermore, he has not shown how he was harmed by the ruling allowing witness Griffin to testify. We find no reversible error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, HUNTER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.