Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State of Ohio asks the court to find Evan Mercer guilty of taking a drill without permission. The record identifies the drill as costing $89. Evan asks the court to reject the charge because the evidence does not establish that he intended to steal it. 2. The court decides the case on the shared hearing record. The exit-camera clip was presented more than once, but each presentation is the same short, silent recording. The repeated presentations do not add new evidence. No employee or independent evidence about the earlier conversation is available in the record. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether the State proved that Evan intended to take the drill without permission. The State bears the burden of proving the criminal charge and each required element with reliable evidence. Rules 1, 8, and 41 require proof rather than accusation or suspicion. Evan does not bear the burden of proving that permission was given. Submissions of the parties 4. The State argues that Evan carried the unpaid drill toward and across the exit, and that he stopped only after Witness 1 called his name. It also says there was no request or reason to check the tool. In its final submission, the State maintained that Evan intended to steal the drill and was ready to leave before Witness 1 approached. 5. Evan argues that the clip does not show what was said before Witness 1 approached or why he stopped. He says he understood an employee to allow a fit check. He acknowledges that his account is unverified and that the clip does not prove permission. He asks the court not to infer criminal intent from the unpaid exit alone. Evidence and findings 6. The clip shows Evan carrying the drill openly past checkout, crossing the exit, and stopping near the doorway when Witness 1 approaches. It supports the State’s account that the drill was taken outside without payment. It also shows open carrying and a stop near the doorway. Because it has no sound and does not show the earlier conversation or Evan’s car, it cannot establish what was said, whether permission was given, or why Evan stopped. 7. Witness 1 testified that she called to Evan and he stopped near the doorway. She also testified that she did not recall the exact earlier conversation. In response to questions about her signed account, she confirmed that it described seeing Evan carry the drill outside but did not mention an earlier request to check a tool case, and that she could not recall the conversation before he stopped. Her testimony supports the fact that she called and Evan stopped; it does not establish that her call was the reason he stopped or resolve whether permission had been discussed. 8. Evan’s account that he understood an employee to allow a fit check is an attributed account, not independent proof or admitted witness testimony. No employee or other independent evidence confirms it. The court therefore does not find that permission was given. But the absence of confirmation does not shift the burden to Evan, and it does not itself prove that he intended to steal. Reasons 9. The State’s strongest evidence is the unpaid departure shown in the clip. That conduct supports suspicion and is relevant to intent. But the supplied rules require reliable proof of each criminal element, not merely proof that the drill crossed the exit without payment. The State’s further claim that Evan stopped only because Witness 1 called him is not established by the silent recording. Witness 1’s testimony confirms that she called and he stopped, but she cannot recall the earlier conversation, and her account does not settle the disputed exchange. 10. The court has considered the competing explanations without treating either as established. Evan’s permission account is unverified, which limits its weight. The State’s assertion that there was no request is also not supported by a witness who recalls the conversation or by a record of it. Under Rule 2, the clip is a concrete record of the movement of the drill, but it is not reliable evidence of the unrecorded conversation. Under Rule 3, Witness 1’s inability to recall that conversation calls for caution; it does not prove either side’s version. 11. The State argues that Evan was ready to leave before Witness 1 called. The clip shows him crossing the exit and stopping near the doorway, but it does not show his destination or establish his purpose. The State’s submission is an argument about what the clip means, not additional evidence. The court cannot fill the gap by assuming that the stop was caused by Witness 1 or that the earlier conversation did not occur. 12. The court does not find that Evan had permission. Rather, the evidence leaves the question unresolved. That uncertainty is decisive because the State bears the burden. Rules 8 and 41 do not permit a guilty finding where the evidence supports an unpaid departure but does not reliably establish the required intent. The State has not proved the central issue, so the charge must be dismissed. No monetary award is requested or supported; the $89 figure identifies the drill’s stated price, not a proven loss for which this criminal judgment awards compensation. Final order 13. The issue of intent to take the drill without permission is found not proven by the State. Evan Mercer is found not guilty of the charge presented in this hearing, and the charge is dismissed. No payment is ordered to either party. This judgment decides only the charge on the record supplied and does not find that permission was in fact given.