Is there any case law where a trial judge or jury was ordered to delay or otherwise delay the trial of a witness due to the absence of the witness?

Here, the unavailability of a critical witness resulted from an unforeseeable contingency not within the control of the People. When the trial began, the prosecutor believed that his witness would be available to testify as scheduled. Indeed, the prosecutor had no knowledge of the injury until after a jury had been impaneled and opening statements completed. He quickly alerted the court and defense counsel of the possible problem, even though it then seemed that the officer's testimony would not be delayed. When the prosecutor learned of the severity of the officer's condition, he again promptly conveyed this information to the court and opposing counsel, and co-operated in attempting to resolve the difficulty. Finally, the debilitating nature of the medical problem was independently verified by the testimony of the attending physician. In these circumstances, it is impossible to conclude that the unavailability of the crucial evidence was due to the misconduct of the prosecutor, or that the prosecutor had any reason to anticipate the witness' hospitalization prior to the commencement of trial (see Arizona v. Washington, supra, 434 U.S. at p. 508, n. 24, 98 S.Ct. at p. 831, n. 24).

The only remaining question, then, is whether the trial court abused its discretion

Page 215