based on that evidence. State v. Dixon, 880 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tenn.Crim.App.1992). I fail to see what difference it makes here that the State elected not to contest the motion to suppress. In other words, whether opposed or not, Appellant got exactly what he asked for, suppression of evidence against him. “Bad faith” on the part of the State in this area of the law has heretofore been thought to be the action of intentionally procuring a continuance of the preliminary hearing beyond the 30-day time period of Rule 5(e), Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the purpose of presenting the case directly to the grand jury thereby depriving the defendant of a preliminary hearing. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 578 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn.1979); State v. Mackey, 638 S.W.2d 830 (Tenn.Crim.App.1982) (<HOLDING>) A mere failure to contest defense motions
holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion 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 the immigration judges denial of a continuance request did not constitute an abuse of discretion holding that a telephone request to the court for a continuance the day before the trial was to start was a nullity 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