Dane County Circuit Court dismisses drill-taking claim, denies return or payment

The Dane County Circuit Court dismissed the State of Wisconsin's criminal claim against Evan Mercer over his removal of a shop drill, denying the requested guilty finding and an order for return of the drill or payment of its proven value.

The court found that the State had established that Mercer left with the drill, but had not reliably proved that he knew he lacked permission. It also found no reliable evidence establishing the drill's value for a monetary award.

The decisive issue was Mercer's understanding of a proposed exchange involving the drill and his final pay. Under the supplied rules, the State had to support every required part of its criminal claim with reliable evidence; Mercer did not have to prove that an agreement was completed or establish an innocent explanation.

The saved messages showed Leah proposing to put the drill against $180 of Mercer's last pay and asking him to speak with her before leaving. Mercer replied that he would pick it up after his shift. No further reply appeared. The court found that this supported the State's position that the exchange was not expressly finalized, but also connected the drill to Mercer's pay without resolving what he believed.

Leah's account said she neither approved the exchange nor spoke with Mercer before he left. The court treated that as direct evidence of her own actions and understanding. Client answers relayed by counsel repeated her account, but were not independent documents or admitted witness testimony and did not provide separate corroboration.

The request to speak before leaving weighed against Mercer. However, the message did not expressly prohibit taking the drill before an agreement, and the court found no proof that he understood it as such a prohibition.

The camera image supported the finding that Mercer carried the drill out. Witness Mara Voss could not establish whether she had personally reviewed or authenticated that image, or its timing. With no audio and Leah absent from the image, it could not establish permission or Mercer's state of mind.

The court rejected the State's attempt to treat the defence's acknowledgment that the messages did not prove permission as a concession of knowing misconduct. Uncertainty about whether Mercer knowingly took an unauthorized item or misunderstood a proposed pay exchange remained unresolved.

“The defendant's concession that permission is not established by the messages does not concede that Evan knew he lacked permission.”

The State argued that discussion of a possible exchange was not authorization. Relying on the messages, Leah's account and the image, it submitted that Mercer deliberately bypassed the required conversation and took shop property before final approval.

The defence acknowledged that the messages did not establish a completed deal and said it had no further independent evidence. Its narrower submission was that the pay proposal could explain a mistaken belief, while the image could not establish what Mercer understood. It sought denial of the guilty finding and associated relief.

The dispute arose after Mercer left the shop with the drill following his last shift. The proposed $180 deduction from his final pay was central to the messages, but the court did not treat that figure as reliable proof of the drill's value.

The dismissal rests on the State's failure to prove the criminal claim on this record. It does not establish that the exchange was completed or that Mercer had permission, and no return or payment order was made.