Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it denied Letchers motion for a continuance?
[¶28] It is undisputed that Letcher first became aware of Y.F.’s testimony concerning Letcher’s alleged sexual dysfunction on the first day of his two-day trial. At that time, however, the court ruled Y.F.’s testimony inadmissible by the State. Once Letcher had concluded his defense on the second day of the trial, the court reversed its earlier ruling and permitted the admission of Y.F.’s testimony during State’s rebuttal. After Y.F. testified, Letcher moved for a continuance to the next day, claiming prejudice due to his inability to subpoena a witness to rebut Y.F.’s testimony on such short notice. The trial court denied the request, and Letcher claims this was reversible error. [¶29] The decision whether to grant or deny a request for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse. State v. Shape, 517 NW2d 650, 656 (SD 1994). [¶30] We have identified three requirements that must be met in order to obtain a conti
