When is a continuance by operation of law typically appropriate?

• A. When the defendant has not been arrested.
• B. When the defendant is in custody.
• C. When the defendant has appealed.
• D. When a warrant has been issued.

Answer: (A)

Continuances by operation of law happen automatically when a required condition for moving forward isn’t met, so the court doesn’t rely on a lawyer’s motion to delay things. In this scenario, the defendant hasn’t been arrested yet, so there’s no person in custody or before the court to proceed against. Without the defendant, arraignment, or trial can’t lawfully occur, so the case is continued by operation of law until the defendant is arrested or appears.

Understanding the other options helps: if the defendant is in custody, the case can still proceed with arraignment and representation, so no automatic stay by operation of law is required. If the defendant has appealed, that often creates a stay related to the judgment, not a routine continuance of the underlying case date. And a warrant issued simply points to potential arrest; it doesn’t by itself create an automatic pre-arrest continuance—the proceedings await arrest or appearance.

So the automatic, law-driven pause is most appropriate when there is no arrested defendant to bring before the court.