Portland criminal trial court acquits man of drill theft after earlier borrowing permission

A criminal trial court in Portland found Evan Mercer not guilty of theft and dismissed the charge over a drill he took from a stockroom to use at home. The State of Oregon sought a guilty verdict, but the court found it had not proved theft beyond a reasonable doubt.

The dispute turned on whether permission to borrow the drill for an unspecified evening could reasonably cover the evening Mercer chose. He admitted taking it without receiving a fresh reply from its owner, Witness 1, but maintained that an earlier written agreement already permitted the loan.

The earlier exchange expressly allowed borrowing for one evening, provided the drill was back before opening. Neither message identified a date. Although Mercer's later text received no reply, the court reasoned that this did not erase the earlier permission.

Witness 1's signed account, repeated in admitted testimony, supported that Mercer left carrying the drill case and had not obtained specific approval that evening. But the account did not address the earlier discussion. It therefore could not resolve what Mercer reasonably understood he was allowed to do.

The court also identified a separate gap in the theft evidence. Under the laws supplied for its determination, taking and using the drill alone was insufficient: the State had to establish permanent control or withholding, or circumstances depriving the owner of the major portion of its economic value or benefit.

There was no evidence establishing the duration of the drill's absence, damage, or a particular task its owner could not perform. Mercer's recollection that he returned it on time was not independent proof, and the court did not accept timely return as an established fact. Nevertheless, the burden remained with the State.

The prosecution argued that general permission for one evening did not clearly authorize this particular removal. It distinguished announcing a plan by text from obtaining approval, while acknowledging that the earlier exchange supported a possible belief that borrowing was allowed.

The defence argued that the absence of a specified date made Mercer's understanding reasonable. It also maintained that he returned the drill before opening and in the same condition. The State acknowledged that it had no additional evidence of the return time or lost use.

Mercer requested the loan two days before taking the drill to work on shelves at home in Portland. At 5:42 p.m. on the evening he took it, he sent a message describing that use and promising return before opening the next morning.

The acquittal did not establish when the drill was returned or conclusively settle the scope of the owner's permission. It rested on unresolved reasonable belief and the absence of proof of sufficiently extended or harmful control, rather than treating Mercer's account as verified.