Uppsala District Court denies theft conviction over workshop coat and pocket check

Uppsala District Court denied the prosecution’s requests for a theft conviction and a fine against Anton Nyström, finding that the evidence did not prove he knowingly took another attendee’s coat from a community workshop. No fine or other payment was ordered.

The dispute turned on the meaning of a small action: Anton felt inside a coat pocket before leaving. The prosecution treated that check as evidence of deliberate theft; Anton said he had confused two similar coats and was looking for his gloves.

The court distinguished evidence of a pocket check from proof of what Anton understood. Witness 1’s admitted testimony established that he felt inside a pocket, but did not establish that he found anything, discovered the pocket was empty or said whose coat he believed he was wearing.

That gap mattered because the prosecution argued that finding none of his own belongings would have alerted Anton that the coat was not his. The court treated this as an inference advanced by the prosecution, not an observed fact.

A photograph in the workshop’s participant chat showed Anton arriving in a dark, knee-length coat before the alleged taking. But its angle concealed the label and distinctive fastenings. It supported a broad resemblance, not an exact identification or a finding about which coat he wore when leaving.

A receipt also supported Anton’s ownership of a similar coat. Neither exhibit proved a mistake, and his glove-search account lacked independent corroboration. Nevertheless, he did not have to establish an innocent explanation: the prosecution had to support each required element with reliable evidence, and suspicion was insufficient.

The judgment also found that the evidence did not establish that the coat Anton left with belonged to the other attendee. The court therefore rejected the allegation of knowing, deliberate taking without affirmatively finding that a mix-up occurred.

The prosecution relied on the arrival photograph and the pocket-checking testimony. It argued that Anton’s failure to find his own possessions in the pocket showed that he knew he was taking someone else’s coat.

Anton argued that the photograph could not establish intent. He presented a receipt dated two months before the workshop for a dark, knee-length coat in his size, with a product image showing a similar style.

He acknowledged that the receipt did not prove what he wore that evening or corroborate his search for gloves. He sought denial of the conviction and fine, alternatively asking for a reduced penalty if convicted.

The allegation arose from a community workshop in Uppsala; its date was not supplied. Witness 1 testified that the other attendee watched from across the room without speaking to Anton.

The ruling leaves the precise circumstances of the coat’s departure unresolved. Its decisive distinction was between conduct compatible with theft and reliable evidence establishing a knowing taking.