Appellant was not prejudiced by the denial of a continuance in order to obtain the transcript of his first trial, which resulted in a mistrial. Appellant conceded that only one witness had changed his testimony between the two trials, and that portion of the testimony had been available for impeachment purposes during the second trial. The fact that the transcript was not available until after the witness testified did not adversely affect the trial. The jury was properly instructed not to consider the witnesses’ credibility until the case was finally submitted, and it is presumed that the jury followed this instruction. Because there was no prejudice from the denial of the request for a continuance, the conviction was affirmed.