holding that wilfully lying to officers attempting to execute a warrant by asserting that arrestee was not on the premises constituted obstruction
How later courts described this case
- holding that wilfully lying to officers attempting to execute a warrant by asserting that arrestee was not on the premises constituted obstruction
- concluding that misdemeanor obstruction does not require "evidence of forcible resis-tence or opposition”
- finding that lying to an officer is sufficient proof of obstruction
- noting that willfully lying about location of arrestee to officer attempting to execute arrest warrant constitutes obstruction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority’s analysis except with respect to Cason v. State, 197 Ga. App. 308 ( 398 SE2d 292 ) (1990). Samples was not cited for the proposition that there had to be violence to the officer or the threat of violence to the officer, but rather “forcible resistance or opposition” such as the flight from the officer after being ordered to halt. The last paragraph of Cason confirms this. As said earlier in that opinion, “[s]uch actions [of forcible resistance or opposition] may take the form of . . . flight from the officer after being ordered to halt.”
It should not be considered overruled because it did not require evidence that violence was offered or done. It affirmed the conviction upon finding sufficient the “[e]vidence that [Cason] fled from the officer after being ordered to remove his hand from his pocket and step forward. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)