Opinion ID: 1725949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying thorson's motion for a continuance to prepare cross-examination and rebuttal.

Text: ¶ 25. Thorson's final assignment of error is that the trial court erred when he denied Thorson's request for a continuance to prepare for cross-examination and rebuttal. After Mr. Grissom testified, Thorson requested a continuance so that he could review the notes Grissom used during his testimony to prepare cross-examination and rebuttal. The trial judge denied this motion and instructed defense counsel that he would allow an hour and one half lunch break in which the defense counsel could prepare to proceed with cross-examination and rebuttal. After the lunch break, Thorson's counsel once again moved for a continuance, claiming that he had spent much of the lunch break consulting with Thorson, and had not had adequate time to review the prosecutor's notes in order to prepare an adequate cross-examination and rebuttal. Again, the trial court denied Thorson's motion for a continuance. ¶ 26. It is well settled in this State that the decision to grant or deny a continuance is one left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Johnson v. State, 631 So.2d 185, 189 (Miss.1994); Lester v. State, 692 So.2d 755 (Miss.1997); Jackson v. State, 684 So.2d 1213, 1221 (Miss.1996). We will not overturn this decision unless we find an abuse of that discretion. Id. In the case sub judice the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant Thorson's motion for a continuance.