STATE OF OREGON v. EVAN NOEL HAYES (2017)

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EVAN NOEL HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.

A163890

Decided: October 04, 2017

Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

Michael E. Rose and Creighton & Rose, P.C., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile communi-cation device, ORS 811.507 (2013).¹ He contends that there was no evidence in the record that he “used” his mobile com-munication device while driving in violation of ORS 811.507, and that the trial court should have entered a judgment of acquittal. See State v. Rabanales-Ramos, 273 Or App 228, 359 P3d 250 (2015). The state, for its part, concedes that the evidence was insufficient to convict defendant of violating ORS 811.507 and that defendant was entitled to a judgment of acquittal. We agree, accept the state's concession, and reverse the judgment of conviction.

Reversed.

FOOTNOTES

1. ORS 811.507 was amended in 2017. See Or Laws 2017, ch 629, § 1. However, we apply the version of ORS 811.507 that was in effect when defendant was cited for the offense and all references to the statute in this opinion are to the 2013 version.

PER CURIAM

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network