Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State of Oregon asks for a guilty verdict against Evan Mercer on a theft charge concerning a drill taken from Denise Bell’s Salem shop. Evan asks that the charge be dismissed or reduced. The State’s final position is a guilty verdict, not a reduced charge. The record contains the parties’ submissions and Denise Bell’s presented account; it does not contain a separate account from Denise or another witness given in court. 2. The State says Denise told Evan to use the old drill, not the new one, and that the newer drill was gone after Evan closed. Evan disputes hearing that restriction. He says he believed the newer drill was the one approved in a message exchange that allowed borrowing a drill and requested its return the next day. The message itself is described in the submissions; no separate message exhibit is included in the supplied record. Issues for determination 3. The material issue is whether the State proved that Evan knowingly took a drill outside the permission he received. The State bears the burden of proving the required elements of the criminal charge. Rule 41 provides that each required element must be supported by reliable evidence. Rule 8 states that accusation or suspicion alone is not proof. The supplied rules do not set out additional elements of theft, so this decision addresses the disputed knowledge and permission issue presented by the parties and does not add other legal requirements. Submissions of the parties 4. The State argues that Denise’s direct account establishes a specific limit: Evan could use the old drill, not the new one. It says the later message approving a drill loan did not identify the newer drill or remove the earlier restriction. The State acknowledges that nobody else heard the conversation, that Evan denies hearing the restriction, and that the message does not repeat it. It asks the court to credit Denise and return a guilty verdict. 5. Evan argues that the message approved borrowing a drill and asked for its return the next day. He says it did not identify a particular drill, and that he believed the newer drill was the one Denise meant because he saw no other drill. He denies hearing the restriction. He asks for dismissal or, alternatively, a reduced charge. The State’s final submission expressly rejects a reduced charge and continues to request a guilty verdict. Evidence and findings 6. Exhibit 7-E1, like the earlier presented accounts at exhibits 3-E1 and 5-E1, records Denise’s account that she told Evan, “Use the old drill, not the new one,” and that the newer drill was gone after he closed. It also records her acknowledgment that nobody else heard the conversation. These are presented accounts, not independent corroboration. Their repetition in the record does not create additional witnesses or separate proof. The account is direct evidence of what Denise says she told Evan, and it supports the State’s position; its weight must nevertheless be assessed against the denial and the message’s described contents. 7. Evan’s denial and explanation appear in his submissions, not in a separately produced witness statement or exhibit. I consider them as his attributed account, not as independently verified proof. The State’s submissions also describe a message approving a drill loan and requesting return the next day. That description supports that some borrowing was permitted, but the record does not establish that the message named a particular drill or included the spoken restriction. Neither side has supplied a separate message exhibit that resolves those points. Reasons 8. The State has shown evidence supporting its account: Denise says she gave a clear restriction, and the newer drill was gone after Evan closed. If credited, her account could support a finding that permission was limited. The absence of another witness does not automatically make her account unreliable, and the court does not reject it merely because it is uncorroborated. 9. But the decisive question is not only whether Denise says she gave the restriction; it is whether the State has proved that Evan knowingly acted outside permission. Evan denies hearing the restriction and offers an explanation consistent with the described message: it approved borrowing a drill without identifying which drill. The message does not independently confirm Denise’s restriction or show that Evan received it. The record provides no separate evidence resolving the conflict between the two accounts. 10. Rule 2 recognizes that written records can carry weight when stories conflict. Here, the described message is relevant but incomplete: it supports permission to borrow a drill, while leaving the identity of the drill and any restriction unstated. It therefore does not prove Evan’s account is true, but it also does not corroborate the State’s claim that Evan knew the newer drill was excluded. Rule 8 and Rule 41 require the State to prove the disputed element with reliable evidence; they do not require Evan to prove his innocence or establish that his interpretation was correct. 11. On the whole record, Denise’s account creates a genuine basis for the accusation, but the unresolved conflict and the message’s ambiguity leave the State’s proof of Evan’s knowledge insufficient. This is not a finding that Evan’s account has been independently verified, nor a finding that Denise was untruthful. It is a finding that the State has not carried its burden on the central disputed issue. Because that issue is not proven, a guilty verdict is not warranted. The State’s request for conviction is denied. Evan’s alternative request for a reduced charge need not be reached because the charge is dismissed. Final order 12. The issue of whether Evan knowingly took a drill outside the permission he received is found not proven by the State. The theft charge against Evan Mercer is dismissed on the record presented. Evan is not found guilty. No monetary award or other relief is ordered. This order does not determine any separate civil claim or make findings beyond the criminal charge and disputed issue presented here.