Court Opinion

ID: 9577569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:36:06.366499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:49.505384
License: Public Domain

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF MANDATE FORTHWITH
A Petition for Rehearing has been filed in the above styled and numbered cause asserting that counsel for Appellant did, in fact, exercise due diligence under all the facts and circumstances attending the particular case before us. Assuming that due diligence had been shown, which in this case has not been demonstrated, Appellant’s claim of abuse of discretion must still fall for the reason that he failed to set forth the materiality of the testimony of said witnesses or what they would testify to if present, in such a manner that they could have been stipulated to by the State, and such stipulation could then have been presented for the jury’s consideration without the necessity of granting a continuance and delaying the trial.
The Petition for Rehearing must be denied for the reason that due diligence was not demonstrated, nor was the affidavit for continuance filed as required by law, setting forth the materiality of the testimony of the witnesses in such a manner as could be stipulated to by the State.
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the Petition for Rehearing be, DENIED, and the Clerk of this Court is directed to issue the Mandate FORTHWITH.
WITNESS OUR HANDS, and the Seal of this Court, this 14th day of September, 1976.
HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.
C. F. BLISS, Jr., J.