Court Opinion

ID: 9866140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 00:28:38.908552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:12:56.332991
License: Public Domain

O’NIELL, Chief Justice,
dissents on the ground that, under article 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendant was entitled to a continuance for a reasonable time when the judge allowed the indictment to be amended on the day of the trial, and when the defendant alleged in his motion for a continuance, which was sworn to by one of the attorneys appointed to represent him, that the attorneys needed more time for investigation and , for preparation of their defense, — and particularly as the defendant was not represented by counsel until the judge appointed the attorneys to represent him, at the time when he was arraigned and the case was fixed for trial.