Opinion ID: 1120918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellant's Motion for a Continuance

Text: Appellant argues that the district court erred by not granting the motion for a continuance which he filed after he discovered that the victim had died. The victim died on July 28, 1989, and on August 3, 1989, Appellant filed a motion to continue his trial which was scheduled to begin four days later. The district court held a motion hearing and stated: As I recall we set the August 7th trial date upon agreement of all of the attorneys, and I don't see anything from [the victim's] death that would affect the investigation in the case, so I will deny the motion[.] Appellant contends that the district court's decision was an abuse of its discretion because his entire defense depended upon his opportunity to attack the victim's credibility through cross-examination. Appellant argues that, therefore, he needed additional time to explore other modes of defense and to investigate other avenues of defense including the identification and interviewing of other witnesses. This Court has consistently held that the granting of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial court. The standard for review, therefore, is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the continuance. Our definition of abuse of discretion, as articulated in Martinez v. State, Wyo., 611 P.2d 831 (1980), is well established. We also recognize that review of a court's discretionary ruling on a continuance motion is highly dependent upon individual facts and circumstances. The party who is attacking the court's ruling bears the burden of establishing the abuse of discretion. Appellant must show that the trial court's error affected his substantial rights. (Citations omitted.) Roose v. State, 753 P.2d 574, 578 (Wyo. 1988) (quoting Gentry v. State, 724 P.2d 450, 451 (Wyo. 1986)). Appellant's trial counsel entered appearances on July 13, 1989, and agreed to the August 7, 1989, trial date. Appellant and his new counsel had more than three weeks to produce favorable evidence and to develop alternative theories of defense. In addition, Appellant failed to specify material evidence which he could have produced if the district court had granted his motion for a continuance. See Stogner v. State, 674 P.2d 1298 (Wyo. 1984). We hold that Appellant failed to show that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a continuance.