What is the test for a motion for a continuance in a criminal case where testimony from a fellow gang member who admitted lying to police is insufficient to render it probable at least one juror would vote to find defendant not guilty?

testimony from a fellow gang member who admitted lying to police would be insufficient to render it probable at least one juror would vote to find defendant not guilty were the new evidence presented (see id. at p. 521), and so the requested continuance would not be useful. As the trial court's determination did not "exceed[] the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered" (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72), it did not err by denying defendant's motion for a continuance. It follows defendant's right to due process was not violated.