Sec. 2. (a) A prosecuting attorney may move to
postpone the trial of a criminal cause because of the absence of a
witness whose name is endorsed on the indictment or information, if he
makes an official statement:
(1) containing the requirements of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2)
of section 1 of this chapter;
(2) showing that the absence of the witness has not been procured
by the act of the prosecuting attorney;
(3) stating the facts to which he believes the witness will testify,
and include a statement that he believes these facts to be true; and
(4) stating that the prosecuting attorney is unable to prove the
facts specified in accordance with subdivision (3) through the use
of any other witness whose testimony can be as readily procured.
Upon request of the defendant the court shall order that the prosecuting
attorney's motion and official statement be made in writing.
(b) The trial may not be postponed if:
(1) after a motion by the prosecuting attorney because of the
absence of a witness, the defendant admits that the absent witness
would testify to the facts as alleged by the prosecuting attorney in
his official statement in accordance with subsection (a)(3); or
(2) after a motion by the prosecuting attorney to postpone because
of the absence of written or documentary evidence, the defendant
admits that the written or documentary evidence exists.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1988–2008 · leading case:
Hill v. State, 773 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Hill v. State, 773 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 10× “, , Hill claims that the trial court erred when it granted the State’s request for a *344 continuance pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-36-7-2. That statute provides: (a) A prosecuting attorney may move to postpone the trial of a criminal cause because of the absence of a witness whose…”
Kindred v. State, 524 N.E.2d 279 (Ind. 1988).
· cites it 6× “Defendant filed a written objection to the State's motion, contending the State failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Ind.Code § 35-36-7-2, which provides: (a) A prosecuting attorney may move to postpone the trial of a criminal cause because of the absence of a…”
Hill v. State, 777 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The State later requested a continuance of the March 19, 2001 trial date pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-36-7-2 (1998) because one of its witnesses was hospitalized after a heart attack.”
Baxter v. State, 727 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Baxter also argues that, under Indiana Code § 35-36-7-2, the State must show that the evidence is material and that it has not been able to procure the evidence in the exercise of due diligence in order to be entitled to a continuance.”
Hill v. Wilson, 519 F.3d 366 (7th Cir. 2008).
“Ind.Code § 35-36-7-2(b)(1). Hill *368 agreed that the prosecution could introduce a narrative summarizing the clerk’s likely testimony.”
Crocker v. State, 563 N.E.2d 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “CODE § 35-36-7-2 (1988 Ed.), “(a) A prosecuting attorney may move to postpone the trial of a criminal cause because of the absence of a witness whose name is endorsed on the indictment or information, if he makes an official statement: (1) containing the requirements of…”
Griffin v. State, 695 N.E.2d 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “In his argument, Griffin also refers to Ind.Code § 35-36-7-2, which provides for the postponement of a trial on the motion of the prosecutor.”
Hill, Asher v. Wilson, Bill (7th Cir. 2008).
“Ind. Code §35-36-7-2 (b)(1). Hill agreed that the prosecution could introduce a narrative summarizing the clerk’s likely testimony.”
— Ind. Code § 35-36-7-2(a)(3) — 1 case
Kindred v. State, 524 N.E.2d 279 (Ind. 1988).
“Defendant filed a written objection to the State's motion, contending the State failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Ind.Code § 35-36-7-2, which provides: (a) A prosecuting attorney may move to postpone the trial of a criminal cause because of the absence of a…”
— Ind. Code § 35-36-7-2(b)(1) — 1 case
Hill v. Wilson, 519 F.3d 366 (7th Cir. 2008).
“Ind.Code § 35-36-7-2(b)(1). Hill *368 agreed that the prosecution could introduce a narrative summarizing the clerk’s likely testimony.”
— Ind. Code § 35-36-7-2(b)(l) — 1 case
Hill v. State, 773 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
“, , Hill claims that the trial court erred when it granted the State’s request for a *344 continuance pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-36-7-2. That statute provides: (a) A prosecuting attorney may move to postpone the trial of a criminal cause because of the absence of a witness whose…”
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.