Court Opinion

ID: 9791609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:14:28.376062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:37.216583
License: Public Domain

CHAPEL, Judge,
specially concurring:
While I agree James Glenn Robedeaux’s conviction and sentence should be affirmed, I believe the trial court erred in failing to *437grant Robedeaux a continuance. The trial court granted the prosecution a continuance when the prosecution’s expert witness was out of the country and unable to attend the trial. Although Robedeaux’s expert was available to testify on the original trial date, his expert was out of the country on the new trial date. When Robedeaux requested a continuance, the trial court refused to grant Robedeaux the same relief which it had extended to the State. Given that the trial court had granted the prosecution a continuance when its expert was out of the country, it seems manifestly unfair for the trial court to deny Robedeaux a continuance when precisely the same circumstances existed. See e.g. United States v. West, 828 F.2d 1468 (10th Cir.1987); Teat v. State, 181 Ga.App. 735, 353 S.E.2d 535 (1987). Nonetheless, I find that this error should not be grounds for relief because Robedeaux has failed to show how he would be prejudiced by the trial court’s error. Nor do I find that the testimony of Robedeaux’s expert would have affected the outcome of the trial. Lovelady v. State, 478 P.2d 983 (Okl.Cr.1970). For this reason, I concur in the judgment of the Court.