Court Opinion

ID: 9793968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:55:56.540577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:14.111699
License: Public Domain

FOLEY, J.,
dissenting.
This case comes before us on appeal by defendant from an order denying a motion for continuance during his trial on a charge of selling marihuana. While I agree with nearly everything appearing in the majority opinion, I do not believe this case should be reversed.
Motions for continuances during a trial to obtain additional evidence are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., State v. Otten, 234 Or 219, 221-23, 380 P2d 812 (1963); State v. Edwards, 3 Or App 179, 185-86, 471 P2d 843, Sup Ct review denied (1970).
In this case the defendant moved prior to trial for
“* # * a list of the criminal convictions of each of the witnesses which the State of Oregon may call at the trial of the above-entitled case.”①
On the day before trial the prosecutor advised the trial court that he had a teletype indicating that one of the state’s witnesses had a prior criminal record, but that he did not have a full report of that record. *270The trial court thereupon asked the prosecutor to provide a copy of the teletype report to defense counsel, and this was done. But the court denied the request that the prosecutor furnish a more complete criminal record, saying, in the single sentence:
“Then you may furnish — I’m not going to require you to check with the F.B.I. or any other police agency to see whether any of your witnesses have criminal convictions, but will you furnish the information that you just mentioned to [defense counsel] when you meet with him this evening?”
Upon trial the next day, after defense counsel’s motion for a continuance was denied, defense counsel asked the witness Ryan about his previous convictions and the witness testified to convictions of “joy riding in ’69 in San Diego,” “bad checks around ’69 * * * in Redding, California,” “petty theft * * * of a tape recorder in Anderson, California,” and “drunk driving in Redding.” Defendant thus did, in fact, impeach the witness, Ryan.
It is my conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under the circumstances in refusing to grant a continuance.
I would affirm.

 While the state usually possesses the F.B.I. record of the defendant in a given case, it is less than usual that the state have the F.B.I. record of witnesses.