Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State of Wisconsin asks the Court to find Owen Becker guilty of theft for carrying an unpaid drill out of Alder Basket Hardware and to impose a modest fine. Owen denies that the State has proved he intended to take the drill without permission. He says a clerk allowed him to test it near his car. 2. The record includes a silent checkout-area video, Lena Holt’s signed account, and a handwritten demonstration slip. The parties have had an opportunity to make final submissions. No further proof is identified as obtainable, and the matter is ready for decision. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether the State proved that Owen intended to take the drill without permission. The State bears the burden of proving each required criminal element with reliable evidence under Rule 41. Rule 8 also makes clear that suspicion or accusation alone is not proof. Submissions of the parties 4. The State argues that Owen’s open departure with an unpaid drill, followed by movement toward the parking area, supports an inference that he intended to take it without paying. It also relies on the slip’s instruction to try the drill on scrap and bring it back to the counter, while acknowledging that the record does not show who gave Owen the slip or whether he saw it. 5. Owen argues that the video and Holt’s account show only that he carried the drill outside and returned it when called. He says those facts are consistent with his belief that he had permission to test the drill outside. He emphasizes that Holt did not hear the full conversation with the clerk and that the slip is not linked to him by evidence showing that he received or read it. Evidence and findings 6. The video is clear evidence of a limited sequence: Owen carried the drill past the checkout and out the door, then came back into view and handed it to the manager shortly afterward. It has no audio and does not show the clerk conversation or Owen’s car. The video establishes the departure and return, but does not directly establish why Owen left or what he believed. 7. Holt’s signed account supports that Owen carried the drill out without paying, walked several steps toward the parking area, and returned when she called. Holt says she gave no permission, but also says she did not hear the entire conversation between Owen and the clerk. Her account is relevant to what she observed; it cannot establish what the clerk said outside her hearing. 8. The slip’s wording is established: “Demo drill — try on scrap, bring back to counter.” It is unsigned, names no customer or location, and its origin and distribution are not established. The record does not show that Owen received or read it before leaving. The slip therefore provides some context about a possible demonstration instruction, but little reliable evidence of Owen’s actual knowledge. 9. The State’s final submission fairly concedes that neither the video nor Holt’s account records the clerk conversation, and that the slip is not proof of what Owen knew. Owen’s account that a clerk allowed an outside test is also not independently confirmed. I do not treat that account as established fact. The question is whether the State’s evidence, considered as a whole, proves intent despite the uncertainty. Reasons 10. The State has proved that Owen carried an unpaid drill outside and moved toward the parking area. That conduct reasonably raises concern and supports the State’s inference that he may have intended to take it without paying. But the conduct alone does not resolve whether he believed he had permission to test the drill outside. The prompt return when Holt called is also consistent with a misunderstanding, though it does not by itself prove one. 11. The State’s strongest additional point is the slip’s instruction to try the drill on scrap and return it to the counter. If Owen had received and read that instruction, it could bear on whether he understood the limits of permission. But the record does not establish that he received or read it. The slip’s wording cannot, without that connection, prove what Owen knew when he left. 12. Holt’s statement that she gave no permission does not fill the gap because the disputed permission is alleged to have come from the clerk, and Holt did not hear the full exchange. The State has not supplied direct evidence of that exchange, and the video cannot resolve it. Owen’s explanation is not independently verified, but he does not bear the burden of proving that he had permission. The State must prove the required intent. 13. Under Rules 41 and 8, the State must support each required element with reliable evidence; suspicion is not enough. The evidence establishes the unpaid departure and return, but leaves a material uncertainty about Owen’s intent and understanding. The State has not proved the central issue. This finding does not establish that the clerk gave permission; it means only that the State has not proved beyond the competing interpretations that Owen intended to take the drill without permission. Final order 14. The State’s request for a theft conviction is denied. The charge is not proved, and judgment is entered for Owen Becker. The State’s request for a fine is denied. No payment is ordered from either party to the other. This order is limited to the charge and evidence presented in this hearing.