The abuse of discretion standard applies to a trial court's ruling on a motion for continuance. A trial court decides continuance requests in light of the interests of justice and the due diligence of the moving party. If a request for a continuance is reasonable—given all the relevant factors including a defendant's right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel—a court's refusal to grant the request amounts to an abuse of discretion. State v. Strauss, 2003 MT 195, ¶ 38, 317 Mont. 1, 74 P.3d 1052.
Section 46-13-202, MCA, governs continuances and provides that a court "may upon the motion of either party or upon the court's own motion order a continuance if the interests of justice so require." All motions for continuance are addressed to the discretion of the trial court and must be considered in the light of the diligence shown on the part of the movant. Accordingly, our standard of review is for an abuse of discretion. State v. DaSilva, 2011 MT 183, ¶ 24 361 Mont. 288, 258 P.3d 419.
Motions for continuance are addressed to the discretion of the trial court and the granting of a continuance has never been a matter of right. The district court cannot be overturned on appeal in absence of a showing of prejudice to the movant. A defendant's claim of reversible error for failure to grant a continuance therefore must stand or fall on the issue of prejudice, for the district court can be said to have abused its discretion only if its ruling was prejudicial. State v. Paulson, 167 Mont. 310, 315, 538 P.2d 339, 342 (1975).