Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State of Wisconsin charged Evan Mercer with theft of Nina’s drill under the supplied text of Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(a). The State asks for a guilty verdict and a proportionate sentence. Evan asks that the charge be dismissed, arguing that he believed he had permission to borrow the drill and planned to return it. He also points out that the drill was recovered. The State acknowledges that the drill has been recovered and seeks no further recovery of it. 2. This is a criminal case. The State bears the burden of proving each required element beyond a reasonable doubt. The supplied record does not state the event date, and the supplied law notes that the applicable statutory version could not be verified. I therefore apply the supplied rule as presented, without making findings about any other version of the law. Issues for determination 3. The material questions are whether the State proved that Evan took the drill without Nina’s consent, and whether it proved that he acted with intent to deprive Nina permanently of possession. The supplied rule defines intent as having the purpose to cause the specified result or being aware that the conduct is practically certain to cause it. The supplied honest-mistake rule provides that an honest mistake is a defense if it negates a required state of mind. Submissions of the parties 4. The State argues that Nina’s earlier message made borrowing conditional: the drill should be returned before opening, and Evan should check with her before leaving. Evan replied, “Will do,” but left without checking. The State says this supports a finding that he lacked consent. It also relies on Nina’s 8:14 p.m. message saying she had not approved taking the drill and demanding its return. The State fairly concedes that the message does not establish whether Evan read it and that the earlier exchange can support Evan’s explanation. 5. Evan argues that he understood Nina’s “should be fine” response as permission to borrow the drill overnight, with return before opening the next day. He admits taking the drill and not checking before leaving. His account, relayed through counsel, is that he planned to return it when his shift began the next morning, but did not set a reminder. He says his phone was muted and that he missed the evening message. He asks for dismissal, also noting that the drill was recovered and that no damage is established. Evidence and findings 6. The silent camera excerpt shows Evan placing the drill in his tote and leaving the shop. It establishes the taking, which Evan also admits. It does not show the permission conversation, concealment, or Evan’s intent. The State’s argument that the camera proves removal is persuasive; any broader inference about consent or intent would exceed what the clip shows. 7. The earlier written exchange is direct evidence of what was said. Evan asked to borrow the drill for his shelf that night. Nina replied, “Should be fine if it’s back before opening. Check with me before you leave.” Evan replied, “Will do.” No later written confirmation appears in the exchange. The words support the State’s view that a further check was required, but also support Evan’s view that Nina had indicated overnight borrowing was acceptable if the drill was returned on time. The exchange does not conclusively resolve whether the check was a condition of permission or a request accompanying an otherwise permitted loan. 8. Evan’s statements about his understanding and plan to return the drill are attributed accounts relayed by counsel, not independent documents or admitted witness testimony. They are not conclusive proof. They are nevertheless part of the record and are consistent with the written discussion of borrowing and a return time. Evan’s admission that he remembered the instruction to check but did not do so weighs against him. It does not, by itself, establish that he knew he lacked permission or that he intended permanent deprivation. 9. Nina’s 8:14 p.m. message is evidence that she disputed permission and demanded the drill back. The displayed exchange contains no reply from Evan that evening. The record does not establish that he read the message. His attributed account says he missed it. I consider the message as evidence of Nina’s position, but do not treat Evan’s silence as proof that he received or understood the demand. Reasons 10. On the first issue, the State proved that Evan took and carried away the drill, but it also had to prove that he did so without Nina’s consent. The written exchange is ambiguous in a material way. The instruction to check before leaving supports the State, particularly because Evan acknowledged that he knew of it. But Nina’s “should be fine” response, tied to return before opening, supports a reasonable understanding that overnight borrowing had been approved subject to a return time. Evan’s attributed account says that was his understanding. The later message disputes approval but does not establish what Evan knew when he left. On this record, the State has not proved lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. 11. The supplied honest-mistake rule reinforces that conclusion. The relevant question is not simply whether Evan should have checked or whether his interpretation was careful. It is whether the State proved the required state of mind despite his claimed understanding. The failure to check is evidence the court has weighed, but the competing written language and Evan’s account leave reasonable doubt that he honestly believed he could borrow the drill overnight. This finding does not establish that Nina gave clear, unconditional permission; it means the State has not met its criminal burden. 12. On the second issue, the State had to prove intent to deprive Nina permanently. Evan’s failure to check and failure to make a reminder are circumstances that could make his stated plan less persuasive. But the record contains no evidence that he intended to keep the drill permanently or was aware that permanent deprivation was practically certain. His account that he planned to return it the next morning is attributed and not independently verified, but it fits the stated borrowing arrangement. The evening demand cannot establish his intent at the time of taking without proof that he read it. The drill’s recovery is relevant context but does not alone settle his earlier intent. The State has not proved this element beyond a reasonable doubt. 13. Evan’s argument that the absence of damage or the drill’s recovery alone requires dismissal is not the basis of the decision. The decisive point is that the State has not proved the required lack of consent and intent to deprive permanently. No amount of loss or damages is established in this record, and none is awarded in this criminal judgment. Final order 14. The State has not proved the charged theft beyond a reasonable doubt. Evan Mercer is found not guilty of the charge under the supplied rule. The request for a guilty verdict and sentence is denied. No criminal sentence or monetary award is imposed. The record says the drill was recovered and is being retained by police; this judgment makes no separate order about its custody or return.