Opinion ID: 1882035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in failing to continue the competency hearing until defense experts could review crawford's post-seizure medical records and re-examine him?

Text: ¶ 24. The day prior to trial, a Motion for Determination of Competency, requesting such hearing on a future date and time calculated to allow [Appellant's] counsel and medical experts to obtain and analyze his recent medical reports and treatment. The trial court granted the motion, in part, conducting a competency hearing, but refused to continue the trial. Crawford argues the denial of a continuance constituted a manifest injustice. ¶ 25. The denial of a continuance is not an issue reviewable on appeal where the denial of the continuance is not assigned as a ground for a new trial in the defendant's post-trial motion for a new trial. On motion for a new trial, certain errors must be brought to the attention of the trial judge so that he may have an opportunity to pass upon their validity before this court is called upon to review them. Metcalf v. State, 629 So.2d 558, 561-562 (Miss.1993) (citing Weyen v. Weyen, 165 Miss. 257, 139 So. 608 (1932)). For example, the denial of a continuance in the trial court is not reviewable unless the party whose motion for continuance was denied makes a motion for a new trial on this ground. Metcalf at 562, (citations omitted). See also Morgan v. State, 741 So.2d 246, 255 (Miss.1999); Jackson v. State, 423 So.2d 129 (Miss.1982); Colson v. Sims, 220 So.2d 345, 347 n. 1 (Miss.1969). ¶ 26. Crawford's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or, In the Alternative, For a New Trial contains twelve numbered entries and several claims, none of which addresses the denial of a continuance. Thus, this issue is procedurally barred.