State v. Gallegos

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 09-04-2014
  • Case #: A150906
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Nakamoto, J. For the Court; Duncan, P.J.; and DeVore, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for continuance when a Defendant cannot show that an eyewitness could "be produced."

Defendant appealed a conviction of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon. Defendant was involved in an altercation with another individual, which was witnessed by multiple bystanders, including Defendant's girlfriend. Defendant was convicted of second-degree assault, despite his proffered theory of self-defense. Defendant appeals, assigning five errors to the trial court's decision. The Court addressed only one of the assignments of error: whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for continuance. Defendant's girlfriend had an unrelated outstanding warrant for her arrest, and after she was served with a subpoena to testify on behalf of Defendant, did not show up on the morning of the trial. Defendant sought a continuance on the trial, asserting that the girlfriend was a material witness to his theory of self-defense. The trial court denied the motion on grounds that the trial had already been subject to at least five motions for continuance. The Court held that the girlfriend was unlikely to show up for the trial, even if the continuance was allowed, based on the girlfriend's outstanding warrant for arrest. The Court determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance. Affirmed.

Advanced Search