Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LEROY DEAN PRUITT, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1980-08-18
Citations: 47 Or. App. 867
Docket Number: No. C13801, CA 17240
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LEROY DEAN PRUITT, Appellant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Buttler, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 47
Pages: 867–869

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted July 28,
affirmed August 18, 1980
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LEROY DEAN PRUITT, Appellant.
(No. C13801, CA 17240)
615 P2d 408
Robert J. Gunn, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief was James Hamers, Salem.
William F. Gary, Deputy Solicitor General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were James M. Brown, Attorney General, Walter L. Barrie, Solicitor General, and Christian W. Van Dyke, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Buttler, Judges.
RICHARDSON, P.J.

Opinion:
RICHARDSON, P.J.
Defendant was convicted of the traffic crime of driving while under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 487.540, ORS 484.365. Pursuant to ORS 484.380, the state offered in evidence an exhibit containing two separate pages, which were copies of the front and back of a traffic citation. The exhibit was offered to prove defendant's prior conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants.
Defendant objected on the basis of relevance and materiality. On appeal, he contends the copy of the back of the citation was not properly certified. No such objection was made at trial. Had the alleged defect been called to the court's attention by a proper objection, the validity of the document could have been determined, obviating the necessity of an appeal on the issue now raised. Because there was not a proper objection, we decline to review the merits of defendant's claim of error.
Affirmed.