Opinion ID: 1723925
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issue: Whether the Judge Should Have Granted a Continuance?

Text: Randy filed a pre-trial motion seeking to declare unavailable a material witness, Melissa Jane King (also known as Melissa King Anthony). According to Randy, Melissa informed police investigators that Andy and Todd confessed to her that they, not Randy, killed Neil. Thus, Randy sought via Mississippi Rule of Evidence 804(a)(5) [3] to introduce at trial Melissa's prior statement which would ordinarily be deemed inadmissible hearsay. The trial judge held a hearing  after which he granted Randy's motion and read Melissa's prior statement in open court before the jury.
Randy now contends that the judge should have granted a continuance so that [Melissa] could be brought to testify. A live witness, according to Randy, is more beneficial than the mere reading of a prior statement. Appellant's Brief at 11. The State counters that, at the trial level, Randy did not request a continuance so that [Melissa] could be brought to testify. According to the State, Randy merely requested that she be declared unavailable and that her prior statement be deemed admissible. Therefore, the State concludes, Randy should be procedurally barred from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. Alternatively, the State contends that Randy should be satisfied that Melissa's prior statement was read aloud: [H]e benefitted ... in that [Melissa] was not subjected to a cross-examination. The matters related in the statement went to the jury without its maker's credibility having been tested in court. Appellee's Brief at 24-25.
The issue as to whether a continuance should be allowed is largely within the sound discretion of the trial judge ... and this Court will not reverse ... unless it appears that the judge has abused his discretion. Parham v. State, 229 So.2d 582, 584 (Miss. 1969); see also Johnson v. State, 511 So.2d 1360, 1364 (Miss. 1987) (holding that trial judge did not abuse his discretion by refusing to grant a continuance in the absence of an alibi witness) (citing cases).
Thus, case law requires proof that the judge abused his discretion by failing to grant a continuance. Randy was unable to present such proof on appeal because he failed to request a continuance at the trial level. Randy merely filed a Rule 804(a)(5) motion. In sum, this Court affirms since [a] trial judge cannot be put in error on a matter which was not presented to him for decision. Holland v. State, 587 So.2d 848, 868 n. 18 (Miss. 1991) (quoting Pruett v. Thigpen, 665 F. Supp. 1254, 1262 (N.D.Miss. 1986)).