Columbus criminal trial court finds Evan Mercer not guilty, dismisses drill shoplifting charge

The criminal trial court in Columbus found Evan Mercer not guilty and dismissed the shoplifting charge concerning an unpaid $89 drill. The State of Ohio had sought a guilty finding, but the court held that it had not proved Mercer intended to take the drill without permission.

The court distinguished proof that Mercer carried the drill outside without paying from proof of criminal intent. Although the exit recording established the unpaid departure, the evidence did not resolve his claim that he understood an employee to permit a tool-case fit check.

No payment was ordered to either party. The court clarified that the drill’s stated price was not an award of compensation.

The central question was whether the State reliably proved an intent to take the drill without permission. Applying the supplied rules governing proof of criminal elements, the court held that accusation or suspicion was insufficient and that Mercer did not have to prove permission.

The short, silent recording showed Mercer carrying the drill openly past checkout, crossing the exit and stopping near the doorway when Nora Bell approached. It did not capture an earlier conversation, show his car or establish why he stopped. Repeated presentations of that same clip added no new evidence.

Bell’s testimony confirmed that she called to Mercer and that he stopped. However, she could not recall the exact earlier conversation, and her signed account did not mention a request to check a tool case. The court held that this evidence neither established that her call caused the stop nor settled whether permission had been discussed.

Mercer’s explanation was an attributed, unverified account, not independent proof or admitted witness testimony. The court did not accept it as establishing permission, but also declined to treat its lack of confirmation as proof of theft. Bell’s inability to recall the exchange required caution rather than acceptance of either side’s version.

The State’s unpaid-departure evidence supported suspicion and was relevant to intent. Nevertheless, the court could not fill the evidentiary gap by assuming Mercer’s destination, purpose or reason for stopping.

“The court does not find that Evan had permission. Rather, the evidence leaves the question unresolved.”

The State argued that Mercer was ready to leave with the unpaid drill and stopped only because Bell called his name and approached him. It maintained that there had been no request or reason to check the drill against a tool case.

Mercer’s side argued that the recording could not establish what had been said earlier or why he stopped. It acknowledged that his permission account was unverified, but submitted that the unresolved conversation prevented the court from inferring intent to steal from the unpaid exit alone.

During Bell’s examination, the court sustained an objection to a question asking whether the tool-case request was an excuse, holding that it called for speculation about Mercer’s intent. Bell was permitted to answer the separate question about the incident date, which she could not recall.

The dispute arose at Alder Bench Supply in Columbus. Bell, the store manager, reported seeing Mercer carry a boxed $89 drill past checkout and outside without paying. Her signed account and the exit-camera recording formed the principal evidence concerning that movement.

No employee or independent evidence of the alleged permission conversation was available in the hearing record. The judgment therefore resolves only the charge presented on that record: the State failed to prove the required intent, but the dismissal does not establish that Mercer actually had permission.