STATE v. PERJU (2018)

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Pavel Ion PERJU, Defendant-Appellant.

A165257

Decided: January 04, 2018

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers, Judge.

Michael E. Rose filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

The trial court convicted defendant of the traffic violation of operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile communication device. Former ORS 811.507 (2015), amended by Or. Laws 2017, ch. 629, § 1. On appeal, defendant argues that, because there was no evidence that he was using his cell phone for a communicative purpose while driving, the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. The state concedes that there was insufficient evidence that defendant “used” his cell phone under former ORS 811.507, as we construed that statute in State v. Rabanales-Ramos, 273 Or.App. 228, 359 P.3d 250 (2015). We agree with the state's concession, accept it, and reverse the trial court's judgment.

Reversed.

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Out of date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