State v. Stull, 386 P.3d 122

Defendant, pro se, was convicted of five counts of second-degree criminal trespass, two counts of second-degree criminal mischief, and one count of possession of marijuana; he appealed only the trial court’s denial of a continuance to subpoena police witnesses.
At a trial readiness hearing four days before trial, defendant said he was ready but had been unable to serve subpoenas on Portland Police officers because the court coordinator’s office was closed 10 days before trial and then refused service when he returned fewer than 10 days before trial.
Defendant sought a continuance (setover) to subpoena the officers, contending their testimony would show a pattern of police conduct—failing to assist him and arresting him—that aggravated his neuropathic pain and explained his alleged conduct giving rise to the charges.
The trial court spent substantial time questioning defendant about the relevance of the officers’ testimony, repeatedly finding it unclear how prior interactions with police related to the charged incidents.
The court denied the continuance (without a formal, single-statement reason on the record), and defendant was tried and convicted; on appeal he argued the denial was an abuse of discretion and that the court failed to articulate reasons for the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance to subpoena police witnesses was abuse of discretion under Moore two-part test	Denial was proper because defendant failed to show the witnesses would provide relevant, material testimony and showed no prejudice	Continuance was required: defendant could have produced the witnesses and they would offer exculpatory testimony showing causal link from police conduct to his charged acts	Court affirmed: first Moore prong (produce witnesses) likely met, second prong (material, exculpatory testimony) not shown, so no abuse of discretion
Whether trial court erred by not articulating reasons for denying continuance	Court’s extensive on-the-record questioning and statements sufficiently revealed its view that the witnesses’ testimony lacked relevance	Court’s failure to state a concise reason at the ruling was prejudicial	Court held explanation in record was adequate for appellate review; no abuse of discretion

State v. Moore, 324 Or. 396 (1996) (establishes two-part test for continuance when a witness is unavailable)
State v. Thomas, 266 Or. App. 642 (2014) (trial-court continuance rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Wolfer, 241 Or. 15 (1965) (discusses trial court discretion over continuances)
State v. Martinez, 224 Or. App. 588 (2008) (denial of continuance permissible if within legally correct range of choices)
State v. Licari, 261 Or. App. 805 (2014) (review considers circumstances and reasons presented when continuance denied)
State v. Kacin, 237 Or. App. 66 (2010) (trial court must give record-based reasons sufficient for appellate review)