Denial of speedy trial depends on facts and circumstances.

- Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is not merely a matter of time but depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Newman v. State, 121 Ga. App. 692, 175 S.E.2d 144 (1970).

Absence of witness.

- It was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant a continuance to the state based on the absence of a police officer witness, who was not under subpoena but had been served with a notice, since the officer was prevented from testifying because the officer was placed on administrative leave. Hicks v. State, 221 Ga. App. 735, 472 S.E.2d 474 (1996).

Defendant's courses of action when trial unreasonably delayed by state.

- If the defendant believes the state has delayed beyond a reasonable time in bringing the defendant to trial, the defendant can make a motion that the defendant be tried, or that the indictment be dismissed for want of prosecution, and call upon the court to apply this section and deny the state a continuance unless it shows sufficient cause for it. State v. King, 137 Ga. App. 26, 222 S.E.2d 859 (1975).

Continuance not presumed erroneous when there is no showing that it was not justified.

- If there is a mistrial and the case continued until the next term, there being nothing to show that there were other jurors present, or that there was not sufficient ground for such continuance, error will not be presumed on that account. Armor v. State, 125 Ga. 3, 53 S.E. 815 (1906).

Cited in Blevins v. State, 113 Ga. App. 413, 148 S.E.2d 192 (1966); Blevins v. State, 113 Ga. App. 702, 149 S.E.2d 423 (1966); Butler v. State, 126 Ga. App. 22, 189 S.E.2d 870 (1972).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 17 Am. Jur. 2d, Continuance, § 1 et seq. 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, §§ 286, 287.

C.J.S.

- 22A C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 876 et seq.

ALR.

- Continuance of criminal case because of illness of accused, 66 A.L.R.2d 232.