25, 1982, appellants moved for a continuance. Their motion was denied and the hearing was held. Both the State and the appellants presented evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial judge found the evidence “overwhelmingly in favor of the State.” On May 26, appellants made a motion to reopen testimony which was denied by the trial judge. Appellants then made a motion for a new trial which was also denied. The Aswells then took this appeal. Assignments # 1 and # 3 Through these assignments of error appellants attack the trial judge’s denial of their motions for a continuance and to reopen testimony. Reopening the record to allow the presentation of additional evidence would have amounted to a post-hearing continuance. Cf. Sather v. White, 388 So.2d 402 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the trial judge’s action with respect
holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion holding that a defendant who stipulated his drug amounts prior to sentencing waived his right to appeal on the issue of the drug amounts holding it was error for trial court not to grant a continuance when appellant moved in open court to disqualify judge or in the alternative for a continuance to file a proper motion holding states failure to oppose a continuance of preliminary hearing at the request of the defense is not bad faith and presentation of case to grand jury during continuance was proper holding the record open for additional testimony amounts to a continuance