Madison criminal trial court dismisses drill theft charge over uncertainty about permission

The criminal trial court in Madison dismissed the theft charge against Colin Mercer, finding that the State of Wisconsin had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to take a shop drill without authorization. The court denied the State’s request for a guilty finding and a proportionate sentence.

The dispute turned on a narrow but consequential distinction: permission to use a drill did not necessarily mean permission to carry it outside, but that uncertainty did not itself establish theft. Mercer maintained that he intended to use the drill briefly on a cabinet hinge in his car.

The earlier message exchange supplied important context. Mercer said the hinge was in his car and asked to use a drill briefly; the reply approved use of the blue drill. The court found that this supported permission to use the tool, without conclusively establishing whether that permission extended outside the shop.

Mercer’s initial written account acknowledged that he had not separately asked to take the drill outside. The court treated that account as self-interested rather than independent testimony. Still, the lack of a separate request did not establish that he knew his intended use was unauthorized.

The signed account relied on by the State described Mercer carrying the drill toward the side door, an objection and an intervention at the doorway. Its author had not been present for the earlier conversation about permission, limiting what the account could establish about authorization or intent.

The silent camera clip confirmed movement toward the doorway and showed Mercer stopping as he was approached. It did not clearly show him crossing the threshold or explain why he stopped. The court did not treat the absence of a visible exit as proof of innocence, but found the evidence insufficient to resolve his intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Crucially, Mercer did not have to prove that his interpretation of the permission was correct. The State bore the burden of overcoming the reasonable uncertainty left by the messages and footage.

The State argued that approval to use the drill was not approval to remove it. It relied on the absence of a recorded loan, Mercer’s failure to ask separately about taking it outside and his movement toward the exit. It acknowledged that its evidence of intent was circumstantial.

The defense argued that mentioning the hinge’s location in the car gave Mercer reason to understand the approval as covering use there. It also emphasized that the footage did not show him leaving the building. The court treated his claimed belief as a submission, not independent proof of his state of mind.

The shop visit was undated in the supplied record. Mercer carried the blue drill toward the side door, stopped when challenged and returned it without using it.

The dismissal resolves the charge on the available evidence. It does not establish that taking the drill outside was expressly authorized, or that Mercer’s account was conclusively true; it establishes that the prosecution did not prove the disputed intent.