PER CURIAM.
Defendant was found guilty of exceeding the maximum speed limit, ORS 811.123, and fined $100. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that he violated ORS 811.123 because no evidence was presented at trial that defendant was the registered owner of the car that was photographed exceeding the speed limit. The state concedes that reversal is required, because this case is factually indistinguishable from State v. Clay,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.