PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals, challenging his conviction, following a bench trial, for giving false information to a peace officer. ORS 162.385. He contends that, in convicting him, the trial court explicitly proceeded from an erroneous legal premise, viz., that a person violates ORS 162.385 by knowingly giving false information to a peace officer, regardless of whether the person knows that the officer has requested the information either for the purpose of “issuing or serving * * * a citation,” ORS 162.385(l)(a), or of “arresting the person on a warrant,” ORS 162.385(l)(b).
The state acknowledges that, as we held in State v. Jaha, 118 Or App 497, 501, 848 P2d 622 (1993), it must prove that the defendant “act[ed] with knowledge of every element of the offense, including that the officer was requesting identification for the purpose of issuing a citation.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the state concedes that the trial court erred and agrees with defendant that he is entitled to a new trial. We accept the state’s concession as well founded under Jaha.
Reversed and remanded.
ORS 162.385 provides, in part:
“(1) A person commits the crime of giving false information to a peace officer for issuance or service of a citation or for an arrest on a warrant if the person knowingly uses or gives a false or fictitious name, address or date of birth to any peace officer for the purpose of:
“(a) The officer’s issuing or serving the person a citation under authority of ORS 133.055 to 133.076 or ORS chapter 153; or
“(b) The officer’s arresting the person on a warrant.”