specially concurring.
I concur in the reversal of the conviction in this case because I agree that the evidence was insufficient. I do not agree, however, with the apparent assumption by the majority to the effect that OES 164.135 is confined in its application to “operable vehicles” and thus, for example, would have no applicatiQn to a car without a battery or with a flat tire.
Bryson, J., joins in this special concurring opinion.