Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State of Wisconsin charged Colin Mercer with theft of a shop drill. The State asks for a guilty finding and a proportionate sentence. Colin asks that the charge be dismissed. The record contains the parties’ submissions, Greta’s signed account, a silent shop-camera clip, an earlier message exchange with Ellis, and Colin’s initial written account. 2. The parties have both had an opportunity to make their final submissions. The court decides the matter on the available record. No supplied law text or rule identifiers were provided. The court applies the criminal burden reflected in the proceeding: the State must prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The State bears that burden; Colin does not have to prove that he had permission. Issues for determination 3. The material issue is whether Colin intended to take the drill without authorization. The parties’ dispute centers on the scope of Ellis’s permission and what Colin’s conduct toward the side door shows about his intent. The record does not identify a separate disputed issue requiring decision. Submissions of the parties 4. The State argues that Ellis approved use of the drill but did not authorize taking it outside. It relies on Colin carrying the drill toward the side door, Greta’s account that she told him, “That stays here,” and Colin’s written statement that he did not separately ask whether he could take the drill outside. In its final submission, the State acknowledges that the evidence does not directly establish intent and asks the court to infer it from the limited permission and Colin’s conduct. 5. Colin argues that the message exchange gave him reason to believe he could take the drill to his car because he told Ellis the hinge was in his car. He also points out that the video does not show him leaving the building. Colin asks for dismissal. His assertion about what he believed is an argument in his submission, not independent proof of his state of mind. Evidence and findings 6. The message exchange records Colin asking, “The hinge is still in my car. Can I use a drill for a minute?” Ellis replied, “Sure, use the blue one when you get here.” The exchange supports that Ellis approved Colin’s use of the blue drill. It does not expressly say whether Colin could take it outside. Its reference to the hinge being in Colin’s car provides context for the request, but does not conclusively establish the scope of the permission. The exchange is presented as an exhibit (exhibit-14-e4); the record does not provide a separate challenge to its authenticity. 7. Colin’s initial written account says Ellis allowed him to use the blue drill, identifies the hinge as being in his car, and says Colin did not separately ask whether he could take the drill outside (exhibit-14-e3). This is a prompt, first-person account, but it is self-interested and is not independent testimony. It supports the fact that no separate request was made, but does not itself establish that Colin knew his use was unauthorized or intended to take the drill wrongfully. 8. Greta’s signed account says the drill belonged to the shop, no loan was recorded, and Colin carried it toward the side door. She says she told him, “That stays here,” and stepped into the doorway. She also acknowledges that she was not present for Colin’s earlier conversation with Ellis (exhibit-14-e1). Her account supports the State’s description of the movement and her intervention, but cannot establish what Ellis authorized or what Colin intended before she approached. 9. The silent clip shows Colin holding the drill, walking toward the side doorway, and stopping as Greta approaches (exhibit-14-e2). It supports movement toward the doorway. It does not show a clear threshold crossing, capture the earlier conversation, or explain why Colin stopped. The clip is therefore relevant but ambiguous as to whether Colin intended an unauthorized taking. The State’s final submission accurately recognizes these limits (statement-16); Colin also relies on the absence of a shown exit (statement-15). Reasons 10. The State has shown that Colin had the drill and moved toward the side doorway. It has also shown that the message did not expressly authorize taking the drill outside and that Colin did not separately ask about doing so. Those facts support the State’s concern that the permission may have been limited. They do not, however, establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Colin intended to take the drill without authorization. 11. The message must be considered as a whole. Colin mentioned that the hinge was in his car before asking to use a drill, and Ellis approved use of the blue drill. That context does not prove that Ellis authorized removal from the shop, as Colin argues. But the absence of express permission to take it outside does not by itself prove Colin’s intent to steal or otherwise take it without authorization. The record does not establish what Colin understood Ellis’s reply to mean. 12. The movement toward the side door adds some support to the State’s case, but the clip does not show Colin crossing the threshold. Greta’s account and the clip show that he stopped as she approached; they do not establish whether he stopped because of her objection, because he had only intended a brief use, or for another reason. The court does not treat the absence of a threshold crossing as conclusive proof of innocence, but it is a limitation on what the evidence establishes. 13. The State’s argument is stronger than a bare assertion: it is supported by the limited wording of the message, Colin’s account that he did not separately ask about taking the drill outside, and his movement toward the door. Yet the central question is intent, and the evidence leaves a reasonable uncertainty about whether Colin believed the approved use included taking the drill to the car. The State bears that uncertainty. Colin need not prove that his interpretation was correct, and the court does not find as an established fact that Ellis expressly authorized removal. 14. The State therefore has not proved the material issue beyond a reasonable doubt. This finding is not a determination that Colin’s account is conclusively true; it is a determination that the State’s evidence does not meet its burden on this record. Final order 15. The court finds the issue of intent to take the drill without authorization not proven. The charge against Colin Mercer is dismissed, and the State’s request for a guilty finding and sentence is denied. No monetary award is supported or requested on this record; no payment is ordered.