State v. Gale, 246 P.3d 50

Indictment returned July 27, 2007 in Washington County on multiple marijuana-related offenses and child welfare counts.
Defense retained counsel; first attorney withdrew; trial date 11/14/2007 scheduled, then repeatedly continued for various reasons.
On 7/15/2008 trial date, defendant sought continuance to obtain new counsel after withdrawal of second attorney; motion denied.
Defendant appeared without counsel; he explained difficulties obtaining new counsel and lack of time to review extensive discovery.
Trial court denied continuance, citing potential witness fatigue and public interest in timely resolution; defendant convicted on all counts.
On appeal, defendant challenged the trial court’s denial of the continuance; court reversed and remanded for new trial with counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance to obtain new counsel was an abuse of discretion	Gale failed to show prejudice; trial date could be reasonably maintained	Right to counsel outweighed public need for expedition; no evidence witnesses unavailable	Yes; denial was an abuse of discretion; reversed and remanded

State v. Wolfer, 241 Or. 15 (Or. 1965) (continua nce discretion in trial scheduling governed by permissible legal choices)
State v. Rogers, 330 Or. 282 (Or. 2000) (discretionary rulings must be within range of legally correct outcomes)
State v. Hug, 186 Or.App. 569 (Or.App. 2003) (test for continuance balancing right to counsel against public need for expedition)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (S. Ct. 1964) (no mechanical test; outcome depends on circumstances at denial)
State v. Pflieger, 15 Or.App. 383 (Or. App. 1973) (right to counsel balanced against state's need for timely resolution)
State v. Lingren, 79 Or. App. 324 (Or. App. 1986) (counsel availability vs. speediness of proceedings)