With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of his official duties[.]” OCGA § 16-10-24 (a) (emphasis supplied). See Martinez v. State, 322 Ga. App. 63, 65 (2) (743 SE2d 621) (2013) (conviction for misdemeanor obstruction “requires proof of some form of knowing and wilful opposition to the officer”) (citation and punctuation omitted); Mitchell v. State, 312 Ga. App. 293, 297 (2) (718 SE2d 216) (2011) (“as one of the essential elements of this misdemeanor offense, the state must show that the defendant committed the act knowingly and wilfully”) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, Green argues that his knowledge was not at issue in this particular case because he admitted at trial that he knew the person from whom he ran was a law enforcement officer. But there are other types of knowledge relevant to a misdemeanor obst 139) (1913) (<HOLDING>). The other acts evidence was relevant to the

A: holding in addressing crime of obstructing an officer in serving or attempting to serve or execute a legal process or order that it is not enough that the accused should know that the person attempting to make the arrest is an arresting officer it must also appear that he knew that the officer was attempting to execute a lawful process or order
B: holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had
C: holding officer who was shot by employee of a hotel while he was attempting to make an arrest was unable to recover for injuries from hotel owner
D: holding proprietor of a tavern was not liable to officer who sustained injuries caused by a patron while the officer was attempting to make an arrest
A.