From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. McDonald

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 23, 1981
51 Or. App. 473 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

No. 37620, CA 18235

Argued and submitted December 12, 1980.

Reversed March 30, 1981 Reconsideration denied June 4, 1981 Petition for review June 23, 1981

Appeal from Circuit Court, Yamhill County.

Kurt C. Rossman, Judge.

Diane L. Alessi, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

Virginia L. Linder, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were James M. Brown, Attorney General, John R. McCulloch, Jr., Solicitor General, and William F. Gary, Deputy Solicitor, Salem.

Before Joseph, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Warren, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Reversed.


Defendant appeals from his conviction for driving a motor vehicle while his operator's license was suspended (ORS 487.560) and claims as error that the copies of documents from the Motor Vehicle Division were not properly certified and therefore were inadmissible.

At trial the state introduced a copy of the suspension order issued to defendant and a copy of the mailing certificate showing that defendant had received notice of the suspension order. The documents and the certifications on each were photocopies. None of the photocopied certifications contained an original signature. In State v. Turner, 51 Or. App. 113, 624 P.2d 1089 (1981), we concluded under similar facts that the documents were not properly certified. ORS 43.470(1).

Reversed.


Summaries of

State v. McDonald

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 23, 1981
51 Or. App. 473 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

State v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. BENNIE EDDIE McDONALD, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 23, 1981

Citations

51 Or. App. 473 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
626 P.2d 1

Citing Cases

State v. Barckley

In Pingelton, we could at least tell how the photocopy was made. Assuming this distinction existed between…