Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State of Ohio asks the Court to convict Evan Mercer of misdemeanor theft. The dispute presented in the hearing is whether Evan had permission to borrow Lena’s drill. The record contains two relevant text exchanges: an earlier message about borrowing tools and an evening exchange about the drill. The parties have both made final submissions, and no further evidence is offered. 2. This judgment is limited to the supplied record and rules. The State’s request for conviction is an allegation and argument, not proof by itself. The Court decides the charge on the evidence actually presented. Issues for determination 3. The sole material issue is whether the State proved that Evan took the drill without permission. The State bears the burden of proving each required element with reliable evidence. Rule 41 requires proof of every element in a criminal matter; Rules 1 and 8 likewise make clear that the party seeking relief must support it and that accusation or suspicion alone is insufficient. Submissions of the parties 4. The State relies on the evening text exchange and Lena’s earlier message. It argues that the earlier message told Evan to ask before borrowing a tool and that the evening exchange confirms he had the drill. It asks for a theft conviction. In its final submission, the State repeats that these messages support its request, but does not identify a message or witness showing whether Evan asked about this drill or whether Lena approved it. 5. Evan argues that the evening exchange proves possession, not lack of permission. He says Lena agreed to lend him the drill, while acknowledging that his account has no independent support in the record. He also accepts that the earlier message shows a willingness to lend tools but does not itself prove approval for this particular drill. He asks the Court to deny the conviction because the State has not proved the disputed point. Evidence and findings 6. Exhibit 2 (also presented as exhibits 3, 4, 11, 20, 21, and 23) records Lena asking, “Did you take my drill?” and Evan replying, “Yes, I have it. I’ll bring it back tomorrow.” The repeated versions describe the same exchange, not separate corroborating events. The exchange reliably supports that Evan had the drill and said he would return it. It does not say whether Lena had given permission. Evan’s failure to mention permission in that reply is a relevant omission, but it does not by itself establish that permission was absent. 7. The earlier tool-loan message (exhibits 3, 4, 21, and 23) says, “If you need a tool, just ask. I’m happy to lend you one.” It supports that Lena was willing to lend tools if asked. It also indicates that asking mattered. But the message is from two weeks earlier and does not establish whether Evan asked about this drill or what Lena’s response was. It therefore supports neither a finding that permission was given nor a finding that it was refused. 8. Witness 1’s admitted testimony is expressly uncertain: prior tool lending may inform whether Evan understood permission was needed. It does not establish whether permission was given for this drill. Evan’s assertion that Lena agreed is an attributed account in his submissions, not independent testimony or a produced record. The Court does not treat it as proven. At the same time, the weakness of Evan’s account does not relieve the State of its burden. Reasons 9. The State has proved possession and an expressed intention to return the drill the next day. Those facts are consistent with borrowing, but they do not resolve whether the borrowing was authorized. The earlier message makes a request relevant, yet the record contains no specific evidence that Evan did or did not make one, and no evidence of Lena’s response concerning this drill. 10. The State’s strongest point is that Evan’s evening reply acknowledges having the drill but omits any claim of permission, while the earlier message told him to ask. That omission may make his later account less persuasive. However, the charge cannot be established merely because the defendant’s explanation is unconfirmed or because the circumstances raise a question. Under Rules 41 and 8, the State must provide reliable support for the required element. The messages do not answer the permission question, and the uncertain testimony does not fill that gap. 11. The defendant’s position succeeds on the burden of proof, not because the Court finds that Lena actually gave permission. The Court makes no affirmative finding that Evan asked or that Lena agreed. Rather, the evidence leaves that question unresolved, and the State bears the consequence of that uncertainty. The State’s final submission adds no new evidence or reasoning that changes the result. 12. The record identifies no further obtainable proof, and adjournment is not allowed. The Court therefore decides the issue on the available record rather than delaying for evidence that has not been identified. The unresolved element is not proven. Final order 13. The issue of whether Evan took the drill without permission is found not proven. The State’s request for a misdemeanor theft conviction is denied. Evan Mercer is not convicted on the charge presented in this hearing, and the charge is dismissed on this record. 14. No monetary claim or monetary award is supported by the record. This order does not find that Lena gave permission; it finds only that the State did not prove lack of permission as required for the requested conviction.