On all applications for a continuance the party shall set forth in his affidavit the facts which he expects to prove by his absent witness or documents that the court may judge of the materiality of such facts, the name and residence of the absent witness, that he has used due diligence to procure the absent documents, or presence of the absent witness, as the case may be, stating in what such diligence consists, and that the continuance is not sought for delay only, but that justice may be done. The court may grant or deny a continuance, in its discretion, and may of its own motion cross-examine the party making the affidavit. The attorneys for the other side may also cross-examine and may introduce evidence by affidavit or otherwise for the purpose of showing to the court that a continuance should be denied. No application for a continuance shall be considered in the absence of the party making the affidavit, unless his absence be accounted for to the satisfaction of the court. A denial of the continuance shall not be ground for reversal unless the supreme court shall be satisfied that injustice resulted therefrom.
Codes, 1857, ch. 61, art. 151; 1871, § 633; 1880, § 1704; 1892, § 723; 1906, § 784; Hemingway's 1917, § 567; 1930, § 576; 1942, § 1520.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
70
cases, 1981–2019 · leading case:
Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362 (2002).
Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362 (2002).
· cites it 2× “709 (West 1981); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-29 (1972); Okla. Stat.”
Lambert v. State, 654 So. 2d 17 (Miss. 1995).
· cites it 4× “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-29 states: "A denial of the continuance shall not be ground for reversal unless the supreme court shall be satisfied that injustice resulted therefrom.”
Stack v. State, 860 So. 2d 687 (Miss. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann., § 99-15-29 (2000) states as follows: On all applications for a continuance the party shall set forth in his affidavit the facts which he expects to prove by his absent witness or documents that the court may judge of the materiality of such facts, the name and…”
Smiley v. State, 815 So. 2d 1140 (Miss. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-15-29 (2000) provides the statutory direction regarding application for continuances: On all applications for a continuance the party shall set forth in his affidavit the facts which he expects to prove by his absent witness or documents that the court may…”
Johnson v. State, 631 So. 2d 185 (Miss. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Johnson also cites Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-29 (1972), the statute on continuances, and notes that "the trial court in the exercise of sound judicial discretion could properly have denied the requested continuance.”
Stubbs v. State, 845 So. 2d 656 (Miss. 2003).
· cites it 3× “2000) provides as follows: *665 On all applications for a continuance the party shall set forth in his affidavit the facts which he expects to prove by his absent witness or documents that the court may judge of the materiality of such facts, the name and residence of the absent…”
Walker v. State, 671 So. 2d 581 (Miss. 1995).
“However, in as much as Riser, who confessed to the kidnap, rape and murder of Konya Edwards and entered into a plea bargain two days before Walker's trial, received only a life sentence, it is apparent that Walker was prejudiced.”
Rickey Portis v. State of Mississippi, 245 So. 3d 457 (Miss. 2018).
“1995) ; Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-29 (Rev. 2015) ("A denial of the continuance shall not be ground for reversal unless the supreme court shall be satisfied that injustice resulted therefrom.”
Johnson v. State, 477 So. 2d 196 (Miss. 1985).
“This motion contained almost none of the essential ingredients we have consistently required under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-29 (1972) to justify a continuance of a cause.”
White v. State, 532 So. 2d 1207 (Miss. 1988).
“1981); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-29 (1972). Finally, we find no error in the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for individual sequestered voir dire.”
Gray v. State, 799 So. 2d 53 (Miss. 2001).
“Miss.Code Ann. § 99-15-29 (2000) states as follows: On all applications for a continuance the party shall set forth in his affidavit the facts which he expects to prove by his absent witness or documents that the court may judge of the materiality of such facts, the name and…”
Minnick v. State, 551 So. 2d 77 (Miss. 1988).
“The trial judge overruled both motions, allowing Blymier to testify. The state does not dispute that Minnick's motion for continuance was properly brought before the trial court, as set out in Gates v.”
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.