People v. Brown
Synopsis
Continuance in Criminal Case.—In a criminal case, if the defendant has relied on the promise of a material witness to attend the trial the first time the case is called after the indictment is found, and for that reason ha-omitted to take his deposition, and the witness resides heyond the jurir diction of the Court, a continuance should he granted.
By the Court: The defendant’s motion for a continuance should have been granted. His affidavit disclosed the materiality of the absent witnesses ; that they had promised to attend the trial, and that relying on this promise, and deeming it important to him that they should testify in person at the trial, he had omitted to take their depositions, but could procure them before another trial. This brings the case fully within the ruling in People v. Dodge, 28 Cal. 447, and within the reasoning in People v. Francis, 38 Cal. 185.
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)