Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State of Ohio charged Evan Mercer with theft involving a drill from a Columbus shop. The State asks for a finding that the charge is proved and for return of the drill or payment of its claimed $180 value. Evan denies that the evidence proves theft and asks that the charge and requested relief be denied. 2. This decision is based on the supplied record. The submissions are arguments, not proof by themselves. The presented manager’s signed account and the next-day message exchange are evidence, but their weight must be assessed in light of their contents and the competing explanations. No additional evidence was offered after both sides were given a final opportunity to address the case. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the State proved that Evan knowingly obtained or controlled the drill without the owner’s consent or beyond the scope of consent, and whether he did so with purpose to deprive the owner. A separate issue is whether the record supports the requested $180 value or any restitution. 4. Under the supplied Ohio theft provision, the State must prove the prohibited taking or control, the required knowledge, and a purpose to deprive. The supplied definition of “deprive” includes withholding property permanently or for a period that appropriates a substantial portion of its value or use. The State bears the burden of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not have to prove that permission was given or otherwise disprove the charge. Submissions of the parties 5. The State argues that Lena had not approved a loan, that Evan took the drill without clarifying an ambiguous reply, and that the drill remained at his home when his next shift began. It relies on those circumstances to argue that Evan knowingly kept the drill beyond any permission. The State also acknowledges that Evan said he thought Lena had agreed and offered to bring it back that afternoon, and that the record contains no further evidence of a plan to keep the drill or of its value. 6. Evan argues that the exchange was a misunderstanding, that he believed permission had been given, and that his offer to return the drill is inconsistent with an intent to keep it. He asks that the charge and the State’s requested relief be denied. His argument that theft requires an intent to permanently deprive does not fully state the supplied rule: a substantial period of withholding can also qualify. The question remains whether the State proved the required purpose and knowledge under the actual rule. Evidence and findings 7. Lena’s signed account states that she saw Evan leave carrying the drill case, that she had not approved borrowing the drill, and that the drill was still absent when his next shift began. The account also acknowledges that employees sometimes borrowed tools after asking. This account supports the State’s position that the drill was taken and not returned by the next shift, but the acknowledged practice and the disputed communication limit what can be concluded about consent. 8. The next-day exchange records Lena asking where the drill was after Evan missed his shift. Evan replied that he was home sick, thought Lena had said yes, and could bring the drill at two. Lena answered that she meant the customer repair and had reported it. The exchange supports the State’s concern that the drill was not at the shop when expected. It also records Evan’s explanation and offer to return it. The messages do not conclusively establish what Lena’s earlier reply meant or what Evan understood when he took the drill. 9. The repeated copies of the account and message exchange do not add independent evidence. The State’s later submissions expressly state that it has no further proof of an intent to keep the drill for a substantial time or otherwise deprive its owner. No valuation or economic-loss evidence is presented. The State’s assertion of a $180 value is therefore not established by the record. Reasons 10. On permission, the State has shown that Lena says she had not approved borrowing and that Evan took the drill. But the account also describes a practice of employees borrowing tools after asking, and the record describes Lena’s earlier reply as ambiguous because it did not clearly identify which request she was answering. Evan’s next-day statement that he thought she had said yes is not conclusive proof that permission existed; it is, however, part of the evidence the Court must weigh. The State has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Evan took the drill without consent or beyond the scope of consent. Issue “permission” is not proven. 11. On intent, the drill’s presence at Evan’s home when his next shift began is evidence of a delayed return and weighs in the State’s favor. But the supplied law requires a purpose to deprive, not merely possession or a late return. The record contains Evan’s statement that he thought he had permission and his offer to bring the drill back that afternoon. There is no evidence that he hid, sold, refused to return, or planned to withhold the drill for a substantial portion of its value or use. Those examples are not required elements, but their absence matters in evaluating the limited evidence of purpose. Considering the whole record, the State has not proved the required purpose and knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. Issue “intent-to-deprive” is not proven. 12. The State’s request for $180 is independently unsupported. The supplied valuation rule describes how certain useful equipment is valued, but it does not establish the drill’s replacement cost or the amount of any loss. The restitution rule limits restitution to economic loss directly and proximately caused by an offense and requires an evidentiary hearing if the amount is disputed. Here, no amount is established, and the theft charge itself is not proved. Issue “value-or-restitution” is not proven; no payment or return order is warranted on this record. 13. The supplied theft provision is identified as the version current on October 9, 2026, while the record gives no event date to confirm the historical version applicable to the alleged conduct. The Court does not resolve that uncertainty by inventing a date or applying a different rule. Even applying the supplied theft rule, the State has not met its burden on permission and intent. Final order 14. The Court finds the theft charge not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment is entered for Evan Mercer on the charge, and the charge is dismissed. 15. The State’s request that Evan return the drill or pay $180 is denied. No restitution or other monetary award is entered. The amount claimed is not established, and the record does not support an order requiring either party to pay the other.