Does defendant have to produce a driver's license to identify himself to the other driver or the police?

Moreover, there was no evidence defendant complied with his duties to identify himself to the other driver or the police. He argues he was not asked for his identification by Officer Draper when he "sat down as directed." However, unlike the duty to produce a driver's license upon request, the duty to identify oneself is self-executing. He also argues his compliance was excused because he was unconscious for two hours and five minutes. However, whether defendant was unconscious was a factual question for the jury to decide, and the jury evidently decided it did not believe defendant. "[I]t is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends." (People v. Huston (1943) 21 Cal.2d 690, 693, overruled on other grounds in People v. Burton (1961) 55 Cal.2d 328, 352.) In any event, even after defendant's two-hour-and-five-minute disappearance, the evidence shows he failed to properly identify himself as the driver or owner of the car. In our view, ample evidence supports defendant's conviction for failing to perform a legal duty following a vehicular accident that caused injury to another person.