Multnomah County Circuit Court acquits man of drill theft amid disputed permission

The Multnomah County Circuit Court acquitted Evan Mercer of theft and dismissed the charge over a workshop drill he took home. It denied the State of Oregon’s requests for a sentence and an order requiring the drill’s return.

Mercer did not dispute taking the drill. The question was whether permission to finish a cabinet job extended to taking the tool home—and whether the State proved he knew he lacked authorization. The court found reasonable doubt on both points.

The workshop manager’s recorded account supported the prosecution’s position that permission covered work at the bench, not an overnight loan. But the accompanying message connected the cabinet job with permission to take needed items and a warning not to leave the shop short the next day. It neither expressly permitted taking the drill home nor expressly confined its use to the workshop.

The missing checkout entry did not settle that ambiguity. The manager’s interview acknowledged that members sometimes obtained verbal permission and completed paperwork later, weakening the inference that an uncompleted form meant an unauthorized loan.

An officer’s initial-contact recording established that Mercer acknowledged having the drill at his apartment two days later. It also captured his belief that he had permission and his offer to arrange its return. The court treated that early explanation as relevant to his knowledge, rather than merely a later defence argument.

The court gave limited weight to a further message exchange described by the defence because the full thread was never produced. Its alleged contents did not name the drill. That evidentiary gap did not, however, transfer the burden of proof to Mercer: under ORS 136.415, he did not have to establish permission to obtain an acquittal.

The State relied on the manager’s account, continued possession and the checkout omission. It acknowledged that the message was ambiguous, that informal verbal loans occurred and that it had no separate evidence of a refusal.

The defence argued that permission to finish the cabinet work and take needed tools reasonably included the drill. It also described messages about returning something before opening Thursday. The State disputed their connection to this loan; the court did not accept the unproduced exchange as proof of permission.

The prosecution arose after the drill remained at Mercer’s apartment for two days. His account, relayed through counsel, was that he had taken it for a customer’s cabinet repair at home. The judgment distinguished those attributed client statements from independently verified documents or admitted testimony.

The acquittal did not establish that permission was definitely given. It resolved only the criminal charge on the available record, leaving no sentence or return order in this case.