McCook v. State, 55193
| Decision Date | 20 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 55193,No. 3,55193,3 |
| Citation | 145 Ga.App. 3,243 S.E.2d 289 |
| Parties | William W. McCOOK v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. Laddie Boatright, Hazlehurst, for appellant.
W. Glenn Thomas, Jr., Dist. Atty., John P. Rivers, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jesup, for appellee.
McCook owned and was riding as a passenger in a truck driven by his 16-year-old brother-in-law when it came upon two police cars, one pulled off at each side of the road. The driver, Kulig, slowed as he passed, but according to his own testimony did not realize the officer walking across the road was signaling him to stop. On being called, he did stop and back up. He did not have a driver's license on his person, and stated that the car carrying the rest of his family was ahead down the road and he must have forgotten his license which was in a pants pocket in the other car. As to McCook, there is a conflict of testimony as to whether he got back in the car immediately on being told to do so by one of the troopers or whether, as the other trooper testified: Adams further testified that whenever he asked Kulig a question McCook interrupted him, that he was loud, that this hindered him in the performance of his duties, and he arrested him. At a point either just before or just after the arrest McCook observed that "if that's all you son-of-a-bitches have got to do, you ain't got much to do."
All cases were tried together. McCook was acquitted of the offense of being drunk on the highway. He was convicted of a violation of Code § 68B-404, knowingly authorizing a motor vehicle owned by him to be driven by an unlicensed person. He was also convicted of a violation of Code § 26-2505, obstructing an officer. Kulig was convicted of driving without a license and acquitted of drunk driving. Only McCook appears here.
1. The jury verdicts establish that neither defendant was intoxicated. The evidence at the trial establishes that Kulig did indeed have a valid driver's license, from which it may be assumed that his explanation of leaving it in a pocket of clothing in the family car was true. While under Code § 68B-210 failure to show one's license on request of a law enforcement officer may give rise to the presumption that the driver does not have a valid license, this presumption is defeated where the license is produced at the trial. See Code § 68B-210(c). There is not the slightest scintilla of evidence to controvert McCook's testimony that he knew Kulig had a license, and his further testimony that he was not aware that Kulig had left it in the other car. A conviction for violation of Code § 26-2505 must include evidence that McCook knew when he authorized Kulig to drive that he had no valid license or that he was "in violation of any of the provisions of this Title." Assuming without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. State
...an essential element of the crime. See, e.g. Moccia v. State, 174 Ga.App. 764, 765, 331 S.E.2d 99 (1985); McCook v. State, 145 Ga.App. 3, 5(2), 243 S.E.2d 289 (1978). Cf. Hudson v. State, 135 Ga.App. 739, 741–742(2), 218 S.E.2d 905 (1975). But the statute was revised in 1986, and “the offen......
-
State ex rel. Wilmoth v. Gustke
...obstructing an officer. See, e.g., State v. Avnayim, 24 Conn.Sup. 7, 8-12, 185 A.2d 295, 297-98 (Super Ct.1962); McCook v. State, 145 Ga.App. 3, 5, 243 S.E.2d 289, 291 (1978); People v. Weathington, 82 Ill.2d 183, 187, 44 Ill.Dec. 496, 500, 411 N.E.2d 862, 864 (1980); State v. Leigh, 278 N.......
-
Stryker v. State
...of the misdemeanor offense of obstruction. See, e.g., Moccia v. State, 174 Ga.App. 764, 765, 331 S.E.2d 99 (1985); McCook v. State, 145 Ga. App. 3(2), 243 S.E.2d 289 (1978); Vince v. State, 113 Ga. 1070, 39 S.E. 435 (1901); Statham v. State, 41 Ga. 507, 512(3) (1871). But these cases have n......
-
Woodward v. Gray
...See Moccia v. State, 174 Ga.App. 764, 331 S.E.2d 99 (1985); see also Statham v. State, 41 Ga. 507, 513(3) (1871); McCook v. State, 145 Ga.App. 3, 5(2), 243 S.E.2d 289 (1978). To obstruct, resist, or oppose for purposes of obstructing an officer implies forcible resistance and does not mean ......