Columbus criminal trial court acquits Evan Mercer of theft over overnight drill loan

The Columbus criminal trial court found Evan Mercer not guilty of a single theft charge concerning a shop drill and dismissed the charge. The State of Ohio sought a guilty verdict, but the court held that it had not proved either knowing control without consent or beyond its scope, or a purpose to deprive the shop, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court made no monetary award. Its decision turned on the limits of the evidence about permission and intent, rather than acceptance of every detail of Mercer's explanation.

The court applied the supplied theft rule requiring proof of both unauthorized control and a purpose to deprive the owner. The supplied definition of deprivation covered permanent withholding, withholding that appropriates a substantial portion of the property's value or use, and other specified forms of appropriation.

A camera still showed Mercer leaving the shop with a drill case at 6:12 p.m., a taking he did not dispute. However, the image had no audio and showed no earlier conversation. It could not establish permission, the identity of the drill or Mercer's intent.

The checkout sheet contained no entry for Mercer or the drill. Witness Mara Voss confirmed that absence but could not explain it and had not witnessed the request, taking, return or any conversation about the loan. The court treated the sheet as evidence of an unrecorded loan, not proof that permission had never been given or that Mercer knew an entry was missing.

The phone exchange supported an overnight loan subject to conditions: use of the spare drill, a book entry and return before opening. It did not identify the drill taken, establish Nolan Price's authority or show whether an entry had been made elsewhere. Those uncertainties did not establish knowing conduct outside the scope of consent.

The drill was returned at 10:20 a.m., after the requested deadline. But the record did not establish how long after opening that was or any substantial loss of use. The court also found no established disposal of the drill or demand for consideration for its return.

The court did not accept oversleeping or the absence of business loss as independently proved. Those evidentiary gaps, it held, did not shift the prosecution's burden to Mercer.

“A failure to meet a return time, without more, does not establish the statutory purpose to deprive beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court held.

The State argued that the missing book entry, the conditional wording of Price's message and the late return together supported an inference that Mercer knowingly acted without meeting the conditions of permission. It acknowledged that the messages also supported an overnight-loan explanation and that it had no separate direct evidence of intent to deprive.

Mercer argued that he had requested permission and received approval to borrow a drill overnight. The defense relied on the messages, the drill's return and the limits of Voss's observations, and sought dismissal. Its submissions that Mercer overslept and that no business was lost remained uncorroborated arguments.

Mercer worked at the store and sought a drill to mount a shelf at home in Columbus. The shop valued the drill at $180. His message asked to borrow a drill for that evening, and Price's response approved overnight use of the spare subject to recording and return requirements.

The record supplied no event date, preventing the court from independently matching the supplied statutory versions to that date. It applied the supplied rules without assuming a different version.

The outcome resolves only the single charge on the evidence presented. It does not establish that every loan condition was fulfilled; it establishes that the prosecution failed to prove the required elements of theft beyond a reasonable doubt.