Opinion ID: 1817269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: did the court err in denying frank, sr.'s request for continuance due to the unavailability of a defense fingerprint expert?

Text: Frank, Sr. contends the court's refusal to grant his motion for continuance violated Mississippi Code Annotated, § 99-15-29 (1972). That statute provides in part, On all applications for a continuance the party shall set forth in his affidavit the facts which he expects to prove by his absent witness or documents that the court may judge of the materiality of such facts, ... that he has used due diligence to procure the absent documents, or presence of the absent witness, ... stating in what such diligence consists, and that the continuance is not sought for delay only, but that justice may be done. The court may grant or deny a continuance, in its discretion, and may of its own motion cross-examine the party making the affidavit. (Emphasis added.) It is also stated that A denial of the continuance shall not be ground for reversal unless the supreme court shall be satisfied that injustice resulted therefrom. The court concluded that the fingerprint expert would testify that Gurley's prints, and no one else's, had been found at the scene of the crime. In the court's opinion the value of this evidence did not warrant a continuance. We agree and uphold the court's ruling.