Skip to main content

Moore v. State

Citations

  • 59 Fla. 23

Syllabus

<p>1. Tbe statute authorizes the appellate court to review by writ of error and bill of exceptions a refusal of the trial court to grant a motion for the continuance of a cause and other matters in pais, but in reviewing such motions the appellate court is governed by established principles of judicial procedure designed to effectuate the provision of the constitution that “right and justice shall be administered without * * * delay.”</p> <p>2. An application for a continuance on tbe ground of an absent witness should state under oath the facts expected to be proven by the witness, where and how the information was obtained, and that the desired witness would testify as stated, and the application should also state facts showing that all reasonable effort has been made to secure the attendance of the witness at the time the application for continuance is made; that he is absent without the consent of the party, directly or indirectly given; that he resides within the jurisdiction of the court; that the testimony is material and not merely cumulative; that the testimony desired can not be given by any available witness; that the applicant reasonably expects to procure the presence of the witness at the future day; that he can not safely go to trial without the testimony of the witness; that the application is made in good faith and not for delay only.</p> <p>3. Motions for a continuance are in the discretion of the trial court, and the action of that court on them will not be reversed unless there has been a palpable abuse of that discretion to the disadvantage of the accused, or whereby his rights may have been jeopardized.</p> <p>4. The rule as to granting continuances are substantially the same in civil and criminal causes, except as modified by the differences in procedure in the two classes of causes; yet affidavits for continuances should be scanned more closely in criminal than in civil cases, because of the superior temptation to delay presenten by the former

Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.