Summary
In Christy, the individual who operated the vehicle without a license had specifically misrepresented to the defendant that he indeed had a valid license when asked by the defendant.
Summary of this case from State v. SettlesOpinion
No. 9906
Decided May 2, 1966.
Motor vehicles — Owner permitting unlicensed driver to operate — Section 4507.33, Revised Code — Knowledge necessary to sustain conviction.
A conviction of unlawfully and knowingly permitting an unlicensed driver to operate a motor vehicle owned by the accused, in violation of Section 4507.33, Revised Code, will be reversed, where the evidence shows that the accused did not know such driver was unlicensed but had been told by him that he was licensed.
APPEAL: Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.
Mr. William A. McClain, city attorney, Mr. Ralph E. Cors and Mr. Joseph H. Johnson, for appellee.
Mr. Earl T. Wagner, for appellant.
Appellant was charged and convicted in the Municipal Court of Cincinnati, Ohio, of unlawfully and knowingly permitting one Ronald D. Ellison, an unlicensed driver, to operate a certain 1965 Mustang Coupe owned by the appellant.
Section 4507.33 of the Revised Code is the section the violation of which is charged in the affidavit. There is no question that Ellison did not have a driver's license. Attention is directed to the word "knowingly" as used in the Code. We have examined the transcript of the evidence and find the following testimony: Appellant testified that, when Ellison asked permission to drive the car:
A. "I says, `Yeah, you have a license, don't you'? He said, `Yes,' and I said, `Be back in fifteen or twenty minutes because I have a date.'"
Q. "You asked him about the driver's license?" A. "Oh yes."
Q. "What did he say?" A. "He said he had one."
On cross-examination by the prosecutor, appellant was asked, and answered:
Q. "Isn't it a fact you told this officer when you were talking to him that you assumed he had a driver's license?" A. "No, sir."
Examination by the court:
Q. "And then Ellison [the driver of the car], he got under the wheel and you told him it was all right to drive?" A. "Yes, sir, after he told me he had a driver's license."
On direct examination of witness Ellison (the driver of the car), he was asked what happened between him and appellant and he said: "And I asked him if I could use his car, and he said, `Do you have a license?,' and I said, `Yes.'"
In the opinion of this court this testimony disproves that the appellant knowingly permitted an unlicensed person to operate his car.
The judgment is reversed and the appellant discharged.
Judgment reversed.
HILDEBRANT, P. J. and HOVER, J., concur.