☢ test - Í

Pace v. State, 271 Ga. 829, 524 S.E.2d 490 (December 3, 1999). Defendant’s convictions for capital murder, rape, and related offenses affirmed; no abuse of discretion where trial court denied continuance based on disclosure of crime lab hair comparison evidence three days before beginning of jury selection. Evidence was provided upon receipt by DA; jury selection lasted one month. “The trial court also stated that it would provide funds for Pace to hire his own hair comparison expert, require the Crime Lab's microanalyst to meet with the defense ex parte, and conduct a separate hearing during the trial to allow the defense to question the Crime Lab's microanalyst about the reliability of hair comparison evidence before it was admitted. … Because of the time remaining before the presentation of the State's case and the measures taken to permit the defense to prepare for the State's anticipated hair comparison evidence, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance. See OCGA § 17-8-22; Johnson v. State, 209 Ga.App. 395(1), 433 S.E.2d 638 (1993).” Scott v. State, 240 Ga.App. 586, 524 S.E.2d 287 (November 1, 1999). Conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute affirmed; no abuse of discretion in denying request for continuance despite late notice of witness. State identified confidential informant as witness four days before trial and agreed to limit his testimony to identification of audio tapes of conversations with defendant. “Denial of a motion for continuance lies within the discretion of the trial court, and unless manifestly abused, the denial thereof will not be disturbed. Pulliam v. State, 236 Ga. 460, 462, 224 S.E.2d 8 (1976); Wellons v. State, 144 Ga.App. 218, 219(2), 240 S.E.2d 768 (1977). Because the trial court provided Scott's counsel an interview with the informant before trial, Scott's rights were adequately protected. See OCGA § 17-16- 8(a); McLarty v. State, 238 Ga.App. 27, 29-30(2), 516 S.E.2d 818 (1999). Moreover, Scott's counsel cross-examined the informant extensively on his criminal record and the arrangement of the sale. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Scott's motion for continuance.” Chung v. State, 240 Ga.App. 394, 523 S.E.2d 615 (October 18, 1999). No abuse of discretion in denying continuance, despite late production of witness names by State. “Although the State provided Chung with a list of 29 additional witnesses shortly before the trial began, the names of these witnesses were drawn from discovery provided to the State by Chung. Chung had these discovery documents in his possession for approximately two months prior to his trial. In addition, a number of the witnesses on the supplementary list were duplicates of those named on the original list, and, after a colloquy between the parties and the trial court, it was determined that approximately only six of the witnesses needed to be interviewed. Because most of these witnesses were hospital employees who had treated [victim] Kelly's injuries, Chung had reason to know that the State might call them as witnesses. As Chung had the names of these potential witnesses in discovery he had in his possession for two months prior to trial, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance.” Judge v. State, 240 Ga.App. 541, 524 S.E.2d 4 (October 15, 1999). No abuse of discretion where trial court denied defendant’s request to continue his trial for obstruction and simple battery. “Judge's case was continued from the July 1998 trial calendar because of a conflict with his prior defense attorney. Judge was aware that his case was to be placed on the next trial calendar, i.e., the January 1999 trial term. Judge, therefore, had six months to hire an attorney to represent him. He waited until ten days before trial to hire an attorney.” Trial court specifically warned defendant in July not to expect further continuances. “On its face, the court's determination appears reasonable under the circumstances. Further, before this Court, Judge has not alleged how a continuance would have benefited the defense. The bare assertion in Judge's brief that more time was needed to ‘locate and interview witnesses’ rings hollow when ten days prior to trial, Judge's new defense counsel furnished the State with a discovery notice listing approximately seventeen witnesses and the substance to which such witnesses would testify. ” Accord, Cunningham (May 26, 2000), above. Hall v. State, 240 Ga.App. 356, 523 S.E.2d 409 (October 14, 1999). No abuse of discretion in denying defendant’s request for continuance. “ Since defendant's trial attorney represented defendant for more than a year before trial and since this attorney failed to conclusively prove that he did not have sufficient time to investigate defendant's case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a continuance so that his trial attorney could have more time to prepare for trial. Applications for continuance are addressed to the trial court's sound discretion and this discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent some sort of abuse. Murphy v. State, 212 Ga.App. 153, 154(3), 442 S.E.2d 2 (1994).” Johnson v. State, 271 Ga. 375, 519 S.E.2d 221 (July 6, 1999). Murder and related convictions affirmed. “The trial court did not err by refusing to grant Johnson's motion for continuance ten days before trial and his renewed motion three days before trial. OCGA § 17-8-22; Martin v. State, 268 Ga. 682(2), 492 S.E.2d 225 (1997) (the granting or denial of a motion