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 officér walking aсross 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 aheаd down the road and he must have forgotten his license which was in a pants pocket in the оther car. As to McCook, there is a conflict of testimony as to whether he got back in thе car immediately on being told to do so by one of the troopers or *4 whether, as the оther trooper testified: "I heard Trooper Adams tell McCook that he had already tоld him one or two times to get back in the truck. And Mr. McCook said that he wasn’t under arrest and that he wоuld stand anywhere that he wanted to. Trooper Adams told him that as of then he was under arrest for obstructing an officer. At that time, Mr. McCook went around the truck and got back in on the passenger’s side. [Then Trooper Adams] went around and opened the door and told him to get out, аnd he wouldn’t get out, he was slow about getting out and Trooper Adams reached in and got him by the arm and he got out then.” 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 еither just before or just after the arrest McCook observed that "if that’s all of you son-of-a-bitсhes have got to do, you ain’t got much to do.”
All cases were tried together. McCook wаs acquitted of the offense of being drunk on the highway. He was convicted of a violation оf 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 convictеd 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 indеed 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 thаt 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 wаs not aware that Kulig had left it in the other car. A conviction for violation of Code § 26-2505 must includе evidence that McCook knew when he authorized Kulig to. drive that he had no valid license *5 or that he was "in violation of any of the provisions of this Title.” Assuming without deciding that if McCook knew Kulig was liсensed but also knew he did not have the license on his person he could not legally authorize him to drive, there is no evidence that this state of facts existed. The conviction on this сount is unauthorized.
2. Code § 26-2505 provides: "A person who knowingly and wilfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcеment officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor.” The testimony of Officer Adams was that McCook interfered and interrupted him while he was trying to arrest Kulig; that he then told McCook he was under arrest and McCook went back around and got in his truck, and that McCook "thought I shouldn’t arrest [Kulig] for not having a driver’s license.”
None of these statements adds up to an obstruсtion of justice. It was early held in
Statham v. State,
Judgment reversed.