Case Name: CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, Respondent, v. RICK ANTHONY AQUIZAP, Appellant; STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RICK ANTHONY AQUIZAP, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1996-10-16
Citations: 144 Or. App. 190
Docket Number: 94-50059, CA A88648; 94-08395; CA A89019
Parties: CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, Respondent, v. RICK ANTHONY AQUIZAP, Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RICK ANTHONY AQUIZAP, Appellant.
Judges: Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 144
Pages: 190–191

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted September 6,
reversed October 16, 1996
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, Respondent, v. RICK ANTHONY AQUIZAP, Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RICK ANTHONY AQUIZAP, Appellant.
(94-50059, CA A88648 (Control))
(94-08395; CAA89019)
(Cases Consolidated)
927 P2d 601
Edmund J. Spinney filed the brief for appellant.
Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore
R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals his conviction of a violation of ORS 814.090(l)(a). The state concedes the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer because ORS 814.090(l)(a) violates Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. We agree with the state's concession.
Reversed.
ORS 814.090(l)(a) provides:
"A person commits the offense of unlawful solicitation on or near a highway if the person:
"(a) Is on a highway to solicit employment or business or for selling or soliciting contributions from persons in a vehicle!.]"