Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State of Wisconsin asks for a finding that Evan Mercer knowingly took a drill without authorization. The defendant asks that the requested guilty finding be denied. The record also refers to a request for return of the drill or its proven value, but it contains no reliable proof of the drill's value and no basis to order payment. 2. This is a criminal matter. Under the supplied rules, the State must support each required part of its claim with reliable evidence. Suspicion or accusation alone is not enough. The defendant does not have to prove that a deal was completed or establish a particular innocent explanation. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether the State proved that Evan took the drill without authorization while knowing he lacked permission. The State bears the burden. The record supports that Evan left with the drill; the disputed and decisive question is what the evidence establishes about authorization and Evan's understanding. Submissions of the parties 4. The State argues that Leah proposed only a possible exchange of the drill for $180 of Evan's final pay, told him to talk with her before leaving, and never approved the exchange. It says Evan left without that conversation and therefore knowingly took property without permission. The State relies on the saved messages, Leah's account, and the camera image. 5. The defendant does not claim that the messages prove a completed exchange. The defendant argues that the messages connect the drill to Evan's pay and leave uncertainty about what he understood. The defendant also points out that the image cannot show what was said or believed. The defendant has stated that there is no further independent evidence to offer. Evidence and findings 6. The image, as described by the witness and presented in the record, shows Evan leaving the shop with a drill visibly in one hand. The witness could not say whether the witness personally reviewed or authenticated this particular image, and could not establish its timing. The image has no audio and does not show Leah. I give it weight as support for the fact that Evan left carrying the drill, but not as proof of the conversation, permission, or Evan's state of mind. 7. The saved message exchange shows Leah writing, “We could put the drill against $180 of your last pay. Talk to me before you leave.” Evan replies, “Okay, I'll pick it up after my shift.” No further reply appears in the saved exchange. The exchange is relevant and readable, but it does not record any later spoken conversation. It supports the State's argument that the proposal was not expressly finalized in the messages. It also supports the defendant's narrower point that the drill was discussed in connection with pay. It does not establish that Leah approved the exchange, nor does it establish what Evan believed when he left. 8. Leah's account, presented by the State, says she never approved the exchange and did not speak with Evan before he left. Her account is direct evidence of her own actions and understanding. The saved client answers relayed by counsel repeat that account, but they are not independent documents or admitted witness testimony. I consider them as attributed accounts, not as separate corroboration. The State's submissions that no conversation occurred and no approval was given are arguments supported by Leah's account, not additional proof beyond it. 9. The State's client answer also says the message did not explicitly state that Evan could not take the drill until an agreement was reached. That qualification matters. The message's request to talk before leaving weighs against the defendant, but the record does not establish that Evan understood it as an express prohibition on taking the drill absent final approval. Reasons 10. The supplied Rule 41 requires each criminal element to be supported by reliable evidence. Rule 8 makes clear that suspicion is not proof, and the burden rule places the obligation on the State. The State has shown that Evan left with the drill. The evidence does not, however, reliably establish beyond the necessary criminal burden that he knew he lacked permission. 11. The State's strongest point is that the messages contain a proposal, not a clear acceptance by Leah, and expressly ask Evan to talk before leaving. Leah's account says that conversation did not happen and that she did not approve the exchange. These facts make it plausible that Evan left without authorization. But plausibility is not enough to resolve the required question of knowing conduct. The record does not show what, if anything, was said after the messages, and the image cannot fill that gap. The State's assertion that Evan consciously chose to bypass a mandatory condition is not itself evidence of what he understood. 12. The defendant's position is also limited. The messages do not prove that an exchange was finalized, and the defendant has not produced independent evidence of Evan's actual belief. The defendant's concession that permission is not established by the messages does not concede that Evan knew he lacked permission. The State cannot convert that concession into proof of the defendant's state of mind. 13. The record leaves a genuine uncertainty between an unauthorized taking Evan knowingly made and a taking connected to a proposed pay exchange that Evan may have misunderstood. The image proves neither explanation. Because the State bears the burden, that unresolved uncertainty means the criminal claim is not proven. This conclusion does not find that a deal was completed or that Evan had permission; it finds only that the State has not established the required criminal claim on this record. 14. The State's request for return of the drill or its proven value cannot be granted on this record. The record does not establish the drill's value, and the criminal claim on which the request is presented has not been proven. No amount of damages or other monetary relief is supported. Final order 15. The State's request for a guilty finding against Evan Mercer is denied. The criminal claim is dismissed on the supplied record. 16. The request for return of the drill or payment of its value is denied. No payment is ordered by either party to the other. This judgment does not determine that a completed exchange occurred or that Evan had permission; it reflects the State's failure to prove the criminal claim and the absence of reliable proof supporting a monetary award.