A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court of Appeals unless it plainly appears that its discretion has been abused since the presiding judge observes and knows the surrounding facts and circumstances, and hence is in a better position than an appellate court to determine whether the design of the party making the motion is delay, or whether the continuance is essential to a fair and impartial trial.Ĥ. Under the circumstances, defendant's failure to employ counsel until three days before the date fixed for the trial was not the exercise of due diligence and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a continuance on that ground.ģ. When the case was called for trial, counsel for defendant appeared and after having had a demurrer overruled, moved for a continuance on the grounds that he was not employed until January 6 which afforded insufficient time to prepare for trial. Action was brought against defendant and December 21 was set as the date for trial, but on December 17 counsel for defendant informed the court that he had notified defendant he would not represent her, that she was ill, and requested a continuance which was granted upon condition, of which defendant was notified by the court, that she employ other counsel forthwith. Mere failure of a litigant to employ counsel until just prior to the date set for trial or withdrawal or discharge of counsel under the same circumstances are not grounds for continuance.Ģ. Present, Hudgins, C.J., and Eggleston, Spratley, Buchanan and Miller, JJ.ġ. Immediately preceeding text appears at serial pages (289105) and (264279).Robert H. The provisions of this Rule 572 amended March 3, 2004, effective July 1, 2004, 34 Pa.B. 1477 (March 18, 2000).įinal Report explaining the Maamendments to paragraph (A) published with the Courts Order at 34 Pa.B. 3128 (July 6, 1996).įinal Report explaining the Mareorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Courts Order at 30 Pa.B. ![]() ![]() Rule 304 adopted Jand November 22, 1977, effective as to cases in which the indictment or information is filed on or after Januamended October 21, 1983, effective Januamended June 19, 1996, effective Jrenumbered Rule 572 and amended March 1, 2000, effective Apamended March 3, 2004, effective July 1, 2004.įinal Report explaining the Jamendments published with the Courts Order at 26 Pa.B. ![]() The traditional function of a Bill of particulars is to clarify the pleadings and to limit the evidence which can be offered to support the information. (D) When a motion for relief is made, the court may make such order as it deems necessary in the interests of justice. If further particulars are desired after an original bill of particulars has been furnished, a motion therefor may be made to the court within 5 days after the original bill is furnished. (C) Upon failure or refusal of the attorney for the Commonwealth to furnish a bill of particulars after service of a request, the defendant may make written motion for relief to the court within 7 days after such failure or refusal. (B) The request shall set forth the specific particulars sought by the defendant, and the reasons why the particulars are requested. The request shall promptly be filed and served as provided in Rule 576. ![]() (A) A request for a bill of particulars shall be served in writing by the defendant upon the attorney for the Commonwealth within 7 days following arraignment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |