State v. Farren
| Decision Date | 09 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | 29187. |
| Citation | 140 Ohio St. 473,45 N.E.2d 413 |
| Parties | STATE v. FARREN. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Under the provisions of Section 6296-14(b), General Code, the failure of the operator of a motor vehicle to produce his driver's license or to furnish satisfactory evidence thereof upon the demand of a peace officer does not constitute a misdemeanor.
2. This section specifically provides that such failure on the part of the driver shall constitute 'prima facie evidence of his not having obtained such license.'
Appeal from Court of Appeals, Clinton County.
On the evening of June 29, 1941, the defendant, Elon Farren, in company with his brother, his sister, and his sister-in-law was driving his automobile along a state highway near his farm in Clinton county, Ohio. He overtook and passed another automobile in which two state highway patrolmen were riding. In a few moments the patrolmen overtook him and ordered him to stop. He complied. The patrolmen told him that in passing their automobile he had turned to his right too soon, and then they asked him to produce his driver's license. This he refused to do, saying that he had done nothing wrong. The patrolmen then forcibly removed him from his automobile. They took him to the highway patrol barracks at Wilmington, Ohio and then to the mayor's court in that city where he asked what charge was being placed against him. He was told that the offense was his failure to produce a driver's license upon the demand of the patrolmen therefor. He thereupon advised the mayor that his driver's license was in his automobile and that he would go and get it if permitted so to do. He was allowed to produce the license and he then exhibited it to the mayor. Nevertheless he was bound over to the grand jury of that county.
Thereafter an indictment was returned against him charging in part that he 'did fail and refuse to display an operator's or chauffeur's license, or furnish satisfactory proof that he had such license, upon demand of a peace officer * * * in violation of Section 6296-14B of the General Code of Ohio.' To this indictment the defendant filed a demurrer on the ground that it 'does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense under the laws of the state of Ohio.' The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant was tried, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine.
Upon an appeal to the Court of Appeals on questions of law the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause was remanded with instructions to sustain the defendant's demurrer and dismiss the proceedings against him.
The case is in this court for review by reason of the allowance of the state's motion to certify the record.
Thomas J. Herbert, Atty. Gen., G. L. Schilling, Pros. Atty., of Wilmington, E. G. Schuessler, of Cincinnati, and Harry C. Nail, Jr., of Columbus, for appellant.
Pulse, Pulse & Roades, of Lynchburg, and Nichols, Speidel & Nichols, of Batavia, for appellee.
The operative facts in this case are not in dispute.
The sole question of law here presented is whether under the provisions of Section 6296-14(b), General Code, it constitutes a misdemeanor for an operator of a motor vehicle to fail to display an operator's license, or furnish satisfactory proof that he has such license, upon demand of a peace officer. This section reads as follows:
It is the contention of the state that failure to display an operator's license, or to furnish satisfactory proof of possession thereof, upon demand of a peace officer, is an offense punishable by the general penalty provided by Section 6296-30, General Code.
The defendant agrees that...
To continue reading
Request your trial