Spokane Municipal Court dismisses theft charge against Nolan Price

Spokane Municipal Court entered judgment for Nolan Price and dismissed or did not sustain the theft-related charge arising from an incident at Riverside Market. The City of Spokane had sought a finding that Price committed intentional theft-related conduct; the court held that, although Price had unpaid merchandise in his backpack, the City did not prove intent to deprive beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that Price’s placement of unpaid items in the backpack established unauthorized control under the supplied theft definition. But it held that unauthorized control alone could not support a conviction without proof of the separate intent element.

The final order stated that the charge could not stand because the City had not proved every element beyond a reasonable doubt. No monetary award or further relief was granted.

• Judgment entered for Nolan Price.
• The theft-related charge was dismissed or not sustained on the record.
• No monetary award was made.

The court identified intent as the central issue. It accepted that Price put unpaid store items in his backpack, a fact conceded by the defence and supported by the employee incident note. The note said Price had a sandwich, two energy drinks and batteries in his backpack and was walking toward the front doors when stopped.

However, the court found that the note did not establish that Price crossed the doors, refused to pay or rejected customer service. It described movement toward the front of the store but did not resolve his destination or state of mind.

The court said the City’s evidence supported suspicion but did not meet the criminal burden of proof. It observed: “The note supports suspicion, but suspicion is not the same as proof of intent.”

The court also considered Price’s account that he was heading to customer service, had payment available and was looking for a missing phone. It gave limited weight to the phone-location screenshot because the record did not show when Price checked it or whether the phone was actually missing.

While the defence explanation was not independently proven, the court held that the burden remained on the City. It found that the competing explanations left a real gap on intent, which required proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The decisive point is the difference between suspicious conduct and proven criminal intent.”

The City argued that Price concealed unpaid merchandise in a backpack and moved toward the front of the store without paying. It relied principally on the employee incident note, describing it as the only independent account, and submitted that the conduct supported an inference that Price intended to steal.

The City maintained that the phone screenshot showed, at most, where the phone was near the entrance and did not establish Price’s intended treatment of the merchandise. It also argued there was no independent proof that he was headed to customer service or had attempted to pay.

Price conceded that he put unpaid items in his backpack but denied an intent to steal. His position was that he was stopped inside the store, before checkout and before reaching an exit, while moving toward a customer-service counter near the front.

The defence further submitted that the merchandise remained visible, its packaging was unaltered, and Price told security that he had cash and a bank card ready to pay. It relied on the phone-location screenshot as support for the account that a missing-phone issue prompted him to approach the front of the store.

The case concerned an unspecified-date stop at Riverside Market. According to the record, Price was stopped inside the store after unpaid merchandise had been placed in his backpack.

The City alleged theft-related conduct under a supplied definition requiring wrongful exertion of unauthorized control over property with intent to deprive. The court treated proof beyond a reasonable doubt as applicable to every element.

The employee note did not state that Price crossed the store doors or refused payment. The record also contained a phone-finding-app screenshot showing the phone last connected near the store entrance shortly before the stop, though the court found its timing and meaning uncertain.

The outcome is limited to the record before Spokane Municipal Court: it establishes that the City did not prove the required intent beyond a reasonable doubt in this proceeding, while finding unauthorized control established.