Opinion ID: 1480581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continuance to Locate Witness

Text: The defendant next argues that the hearing justice abused his discretion in denying his request for a continuance to locate Ms. Diaz. The defendant initially asked for a short recess to determine whether his investigator had been able to locate her. When this attempt proved unsuccessful, Mr. Gilbert asked for a continuance perhaps only [until] Monday, the next business day, to locate the potential witness. The hearing justice denied the request for the continuance and concluded the hearing that day. This Court will not disturb a hearing or trial justice's decision on a motion to continue absent an abuse of discretion. Goncalves, 941 A.2d at 846 (quoting Caprio, 819 A.2d at 1269). A defendant does not have an absolute right to a continuance. Indeed, [n]ot every denial of a requested continuance results in a violation of due process, even in cases where a defendant fails to present a defense or offer any evidence. Davis, 726 A.2d at 14. In this case, the hearing justice did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant's motion for a continuance to secure Ms. Diaz as a witness. The defendant made no offer of proof concerning her expected testimony; it was therefore not clear that she would have contradicted the testimony of the state's witnesses. Moreover, much of the state's evidence concerned defendant's conduct after the assault of Ms. Diaz had ended, and it provided independent grounds supporting the hearing justice's findings that Mr. Gilbert failed to keep the peace and be of good behavior. Thus, defendant failed to show that Ms. Diaz's testimony would have been material. The defendant also failed to provide any facts demonstrating that he had been diligent in seeking to secure the witness. As the hearing justice stated, the hearing was not a surprise, and thus the defendant had sufficient time to attempt to locate Ms. Diaz. Furthermore, as the hearing justice suggested, Ms. Diaz may have been trying to avoid the subpoena. There was no assurance that she would have become available to testify if the continuance had been granted. This Court, therefore, holds that the hearing justice did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant's request for a continuance to secure a witness.