Effect of Admission by Opposing Party of Facts to Be Proved Upon Allowance of Continuance

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

No continuance shall be allowed in any court on account of the absence of a witness or for the purpose of procuring testimony when the opposite party is willing to admit, and does not contest the truth of, the facts expected to be proved; and the court shall order such admission to be reduced to writing.

(Ga. L. 1853-54, p. 52, § 1; Code 1863, § 3452; Code 1868, § 3472; Code 1873, § 3523; Code 1882, § 3523; Civil Code 1895, § 5130; Penal Code 1895, § 963; Civil Code 1910, § 5716; Penal Code 1910, § 989; Code 1933, § 81-1411.)

Cross references.

- Corresponding provision relating to civil procedure, § 9-10-161.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Denying continuance when prosecuting officer admits facts to which witness would testify.

- If the prosecuting officer admits the truth of facts to which it is claimed absent witnesses would testify, it is not error to overrule a motion for a continuance based on the absence of such witnesses. May v. State, 185 Ga. 335, 195 S.E. 196 (1938).

Notes of trial judge may show admission. Morgan v. State, 120 Ga. 499, 48 S.E. 238 (1904).

Cited in Pannell v. State, 29 Ga. 681 (1859); Delk v. State, 99 Ga. 667, 26 S.E. 752 (1896); Watson v. State, 118 Ga. 66, 44 S.E. 803 (1903); Reese v. State, 44 Ga. App. 251, 161 S.E. 156 (1931).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

C.J.S.

- 17 C.J.S., Continuances, §§ 67, 69.

ALR.

- Admissions to prevent continuance sought to secure testimony of absent witness in criminal case, 9 A.L.R.3d 1180.


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.