The defendant was convicted of three charges of criminal activity in drugs. He appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed without an opinion. State v. Morales, 12 Or App 601, 506 P2d 733 (1973). We granted review.

The sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in striking alibi testimony. The court struck the testimony because the defendant failed to give notice, prior to trial, of intent to rely on alibi *423 evidence as required by OES 135.875. ① Tbe defendant offered no reason for bis failure to give notice.

We granted review because tbe trial court’s ruling appeared contrary to Wardius v. Oregon, 412 US 470, 93 S Ct 2208, 37 L Ed2d 82, decided June 11, 1973. Tbe majority in Wardius decided that a defendant could not be required to comply with tbe Oregon notice of alibi statute in tbe absence of a provision giving defendants reciprocal discovery rights.

Tbe trial court’s ruling and tbe affirmance of tbe Court of Appeals also appeared contrary to State v. Kelsaw, 11 Or App 289, 502 P2d 278 (1972), decided subsequent to tbe trial of tbis case.

In State v. Kelsaw, supra (502 P2d at 280), Chief Judge Schwab wrote:

“* * * It follows that in order to give our notice of alibi statute, OES 135.875, a rational interpretation it must be construed as providing that unless tbe record clearly and unequivocally shows that tbe defendant was given timely reciprocal information as to time and place, good cause exists as a matter of law for not requiring tbe defendant to *424 have given the statutory notice of alibi as a condition precedent to producing alibi evidence. * *

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in Kelsaw because the state voluntarily made a disclosure of time, place and witnesses. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kelsaw and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Wardius v. Oregon. Kelsaw v. Oregon, 412 US 947, 93 S Ct 3016, 37 L Ed2d 999, decided June 18, 1973. Upon reconsideration the Court of Appeals held OES 135.875 invalid as it does not require reciprocal discovery from the state. State v. Kelsaw, 14 Or App 313, 513 P2d 516, decided August 27, 1973.

According to Wardius v. Oregon, supra (37 L Ed2d 82), the Oregon statutes, in order to be consistent with the federal Due Process Clause, must be construed to provide that the state must disclose relevant information before the statute requiring a notice of alibi defense can be invoked. The state made no disclosures of any land in this case; therefore, the trial court erred in striking the alibi testimony. ②

The state contends that the stricken testimony was insufficient to establish an alibi because the alleged alibi witness did not testify that the defendant was with her when the alleged offense occurred.

One of the indictments charged defendant with furnishing drugs to one Hayes on March 12th. Hayes, an undercover agent, testified he bought drugs from the defendant in the bedroom of defendant’s house in Winston, Oregon, at 4:30 p.m.

*425 The aunt of the defendant gave the testimony which was stricken. She testified that on March 12th her son brought the defendant into her home in the “Eoseburg area” sometime between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. Winston and Eoseburg are approximately six or seven miles apart.

The jury could have believed from this testimony that the defendant was at his aunt’s house, several miles from defendant’s house, at 4:30 p.m., on March 12th, rather than selling drugs to the undercover agent at defendant’s house. This would have established an alibi.

The state also contends that the defendant foreclosed the establishing of any alibi because he testified he could not remember where he was at any of the times when the undercover agent testified he purchased drugs from defendant. An alibi can be established without the assistance of the testimony of the defendant.

The testimony of defendant’s alibi witness only related to the offense allegedly committed on March 12th. The defendant contends that the convictions for the other two offenses committed on different dates also must be reversed despite the absence of any indication that he could offer any evidence of alibi for the other two charges. He argues that in view of the trial court’s blanket ruling it would have been useless to have attempted to introduce alibi testimony on the other charges.

In the absence of any offer of proof we have no way of knowing whether the trial court’s ruling prejudiced the defendant in his trial on the other two charges. State v. Jenkins, 246 Or 280, 424 P2d 894 *426 (1967). The requirement of an offer of proof to determine whether the exclusion of evidence is prejudicial serves a legitimate state interest by permitting an appellate court to refrain from deciding abstract questions.

The conviction in case 38494, the charge that an offense was committed on March 12th, is reversed. The other two convictions are affirmed.