Opinion ID: 2293324
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Weber's Motion for a Continuance.

Text: Weber's third claim is that the trial judge erred by denying his motion for a continuance and in essence not allowing him to present his defense. We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. [47] The record reflects that Weber's defense counsel filed a continuance request before trial. A Superior Court judge other than the trial judge denied that request on March 17, 2005. Although the record on appeal does not contain a copy of the request, it appears that Weber requested a continuance because one of the witnesses he planned to call (Anne Blake Tracy, PhD) was sick and was unavailable to appear in court. There is no transcript of the judge's decision to deny a continuance because the discussion occurred during an unreported sidebar conference. At trial, however, Weber's defense counsel and the prosecutor told the trial judge what occurred during that sidebar conference. Weber's defense counsel asserted that Weber was taking medication (Effexor) designed to treat people having blackout[] episodes [and] violent tendencies. Tracy, the Executive Director of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness, would have testified as an expert witness regarding the affects [sic] [that the] medicine has or could have on [Weber]. According to Weber's defense counsel, Tracy's expert testimony would have gone to the issue of the ultimate defense of whether the act was intentional or not because [Weber's] state of mind . . . [was] basically almost like an involuntary intoxication in his capacity or some type of mental illness because of that medicine. Defense counsel conceded that Tracy was not Weber's treating physician, but added that the defense was prepared to call seven other witnesses (including Weber's psychiatrist and two other individuals that would establish he was on this medicine and the affects [sic] of that medicine on him.) Weber personally represented to the trial judge that he had planned on calling eight witnesses and putting on a very spirited defense. Weber's defense counsel admitted that he requested a continuance solely because of Tracy's unavailability. He contended that the other seven witnesses were potentially available, but their testimony without [Tracy's] would have been of no value, even if the court allowed it. Weber's defense counsel further informed the trial judge that he and the defendant had made a strategic decision not to call any of those other witnesses to testify because counsel was ultimately not sure that [the] defense [envisioned] would [have been] beneficial to [Weber]. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Weber's motion for a continuance. Weber made that request because of the unavailability of a single witness (Tracy). Contrary to Weber's claim, Tracy's testimony was not central to his defense because: (1) Tracy was not Weber's treating physician; (2) Weber's psychiatrist and other six witnesses were available to testify but defense counsel made the strategic decision not to call any of those witnesses; and (3) Tracy's proffered testimony would not have been beneficial to Weber (as defense counsel admitted) because the defense gave no notice of its intent to present an insanity defense or expert testimony regarding Weber's mental condition, as required by Superior Court Criminal Rule 12.2. [48]