In the review of judicial proceedings the rule is settled that if the decision below is correct, it must be affirmed, although the lower court relied upon a wrong ground or gave a wrong reason.
Defendant was arrested after confessing to shooting her husband. She filed a motion for continuance in order to locate an absent witness, which was denied by the trial court. After the court affirmed the denial, defendant filed a motion for rehearing.
Is a court without jurisdiction to evaluate the merits of the motion for continuance because the trial court did not rule on its merits?
The court overruled defendant's motion for rehearing. Thereafter, the court held that without satisfactory proof to the contrary, the trial court might have reasonably concluded that the witnesses would not have testified as defendant wanted them to and that a mere recitation that defendant expected to prove certain things by the witnesses was not sufficient. The court determined that since defendant filed no motion for new trial, she waived an opportunity to show injury if she could. The court addressed defendant's U.S. Const. amend. XIV claim, and determined that the justice of peace was authorized to search out information to substantiate or refute defendant's insanity defense.