Court Opinion

ID: 9679217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:44:41.568192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:11.494054
License: Public Domain

DIXON, Justice
(concurring).
In its ruling on Bill of Exceptions Number S, some statements are made by the court to which I cannot subscribe. There is no question but that one attorney appointed to the defense was required by death and sickness in his wife’s family to be absent on the day the case was fixed for trial. I do not understand that it was essential to support the motion with evidence, when the allegations contained in the motion are not disputed.
We should not hold, as a matter of law, that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to grant a continuance when one of the defense attorneys absented himself on the day of trial. If the absence is unjustified, the defendant should not suffer; it is a matter of discipline for the absentee. Nevertheless, the record before us does not even suggest that the absence of one of the two lawyers appointed to defend the accused might have, in any way, changed the outcome of the case.
If it was error to deny the motion for continuance, it was harmless error.