JIMMIE DOYLE BEAR, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance.
The defendant was convicted of bank robbery and appealed, arguing the court erred in denying a motion for a continuance. The continuance was sought du…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Continuance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bear appeals from a conviction and sentence for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (d). The only assignment of error is that the court erred in not granting a motion for continuance because of the absence of Bear’s brother John, alleged to be a material and necessary witness for the defense.
At the hearing on the motion, numerous witnesses were called and it was established that until a short time before the trial, the brother had assisted counsel for the accused in preparing a defense, and then disappeared. The hearing developed little, if any, material evidence concerning the nature of the brother’s testimony if available as a witness.
A motion for continuance is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose action is not subject to review unless the discretion is abused. Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, 450, 60 S.Ct. 321, 84 L.Ed. 377; Franklin v. State of South Carolina, 218 U.S. 161, 168, 30 S.Ct. 640, 54 L.Ed. 981; Leino v. United States, 10 Cir., 338 F. 2d 154; Brooks v. United States, 10 Cir., 330 F. 2d 757, cert. denied 379 U.S. 852, 85 S.Ct. 100, 13 L.Ed.2d 56; Wood v. United States, 10 Cir., 317 F. 2d 736; Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 273 F. 2d 462, cert. denied 363 U.S. 846, 80 S.Ct. 1619, 4 L.Ed.2d 1729. We find no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warden v. United States, 391 F.2d 747 (10th Cir. 1968)
-
Swingle v. United States, 389 F.2d 220 (10th Cir. 1968)
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1940)
- Smith v. United States, 273 F.2d 462 (10th Cir. 1959)
- Camara v. United States, 364 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1960)
- Franklin v. State of S.C., 218 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1910)
- Leino v. United States, 338 F.2d 154 (10th Cir. 1964)
- Mayfield v. South Carolina, 363 U.S. 846 (U.S. 1960)
- Smith v. United States, 363 U.S. 846 (U.S. 1960)
- Mastracchio v. Superior Court of R.I. for Providence Cnty., 379 U.S. 852 (U.S. 1964)
- Draper v. Washington, 379 U.S. 852 (U.S. 1964)
- Ned Wood v. United States, 317 F.2d 736 (10th Cir. 1963)