O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-8-21 (2019)

When showing for continuance required of state

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In all cases in which the defendant cannot, according to law, demand a speedy trial, a continuance shall not be granted to the state, except upon a reasonable showing therefor.

History

Ga. L. 1862-63, p. 138, § 1; Code 1863, § 4592; Code 1868, § 4613; Code 1873, § 4710; Code 1882, § 4710;

Penal Code, § 960; Penal Code, § 985; Code 1933, § 27-2001; Ga. L. 2006, p. 893, § 4/HB 1421.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS 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 defen-

dant 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).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 17 Am. Jur. 2d, Continuance, § 1 et seq. 21A Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 1041. C.J.S. - 17 C.J.S., Continuances, § 1 et seq. 22A C.J.S., Criminal Procedure and Rights of the Accused, § 567 et seq.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1989–2006 · leading case: Scott v. State, 455 S.E.2d 609 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Scott v. State, 455 S.E.2d 609 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “We have previously held that the absence of a material witness for the state is a reasonable showing in support of a continuance within the meaning of OCGA § 17-8-21, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the state's motion.”
Hicks v. State, 472 S.E.2d 474 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “The absence of a material witness for the State is a reasonable showing in support of a continuance within the meaning of OCGA § 17-8-21, 2 and in such circumstances, the trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion for a continuance.”
Robertson v. State, 629 S.E.2d 79 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “In support of his claim of error, Robertson cites OCGA § 17-8-21 and several cases in which the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted continuances because of absent witnesses.”
State v. Fly, 387 S.E.2d 347 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 17-8-21. See also OCGA § 17-8-22. The court had little alternative but to acquit defendant in this bench trial, in order to enforce the aforestated statutory scheme which, together with OCGA §§ 17-7-170 and 17-7-171, favors the early trial of criminal cases and…”
Minicucci v. State, 448 S.E.2d 34 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× ““All applications for continuances are addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court and, if not expressly provided for, shall be granted or refused as the ends of justice may require.”
Williams v. State, 457 S.E.2d 257 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “The request itself erroneously cites OCGA § 17-8-21.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.