As noted in the majority opinion, the State has failed to file a brief herein, and this court, therefore, "may accept the appellant's statement of the facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if appellant's brief reasonably appears to sustain such action." App.R. 18(C).

Here, the appellant's statement of facts, as such facts relate to the third assignment of error, have reasonable support from the record, and the bare opinion of the officer that appellant was operating his vehicle in excess of the speed limit, without more, was not sufficient to sustain the conviction by the requisite degree of proof. Cf. Kirtland Hills v.Logan (1984), 21 Ohio App.3d 67, where credibility was a critical issue.

Accordingly, I concur with my colleagues as to the disposition of all of the alleged errors.

(Hon. Joseph D. Kerns sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio).

__________ WOLFF, J.

The State has not filed a brief with this court.

On appeal, Meyers advances three assignments of error, the first of which is as follows:

1. THE MUNICIPAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AND BASING A CONVICTION ON EVIDENCE OF A LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICE WHERE NO FOUNDATION EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THAT SAID DEVICE OPERATED ON THE BASIS OF SOUND, RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES WAS RECEIVED AND THE MUNICIPAL COURT CONCEDED THAT IT HAD NEVER RECEIVED SUCH EVIDENCE OR TAKEN JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE RELIABILITY OF SUCH LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES IN ANY PRIOR CASE.

This assignment of error accurately reflects the state of the record as it relates to the lack of foundational evidence for admitting the result obtained by the laser speed measuring device. We sustain this assignment of error on the authority of State v. Saphire (Dec. 8, 2000), Greene App. No. 2000 CA 39 wherein we addressed the identical issue. See pages 5 through 8.

3. THE MUNICIPAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING OHIO HIGHWAY PATROL TROOPER WARD'S TESTIMONY THAT BASED ON OBSERVATION, HE BELIEVED DEFENDANT WAS OPERATING HIS VEHICLE IN EXCESS OF THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT OF 65 MPH, WHERE THE OFFICER COULD NOT ESTIMATE THE SPEED, FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY FOUNDATION FOR THE OPINION, SUCH AS THE TIME OF OBSERVATION OR DISTANCE TRAVELED DURING THE OBSERVATION ON WHICH HE BASED HIS OPINION, AND WHERE THE TROOPER LATER TESTIFIED THAT IN HIS OPINION, BASED ON THE SAME OBSERVATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT DRIVING IN A MANNER UNSAFE FOR CONDITIONS.

Again, this assignment of error accurately captures the essence of Trooper Ward's testimony. We again sustain this assignment of error on the authority of State v. Saphire, supra, pages 10 — 11. While we find no error in the trial court's admitting Trooper Ward's opinion that Meyers was operating in excess of the speed limit, we do conclude that that testimony, without more, was wholly inadequate to support a finding of guilty of driving 82 mph in a 65 mph speed zone.

2. THE MUNICIPAL COURT ERRED TO DEFENDANT'S PREJUDICE IN DENYING CERTAIN RELEVANT DISCOVERY REQUESTS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO IMPEACH THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OFFICER AND THE RELIABILITY OF THE SPEED MEASURING DEVICE EMPLOYED AS THE BASIS FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP AND CITATION GIVEN TO DEFENDANT.

In view of our disposition of the first and third assignments of error, this assignment of error is overruled as moot.

The judgment of conviction will be reversed, and the defendant will be discharged.

GRADY, P.J. concurs.