Salem criminal trial court finds Colin Mercer not guilty, dismisses drill theft charge

The criminal trial court in Salem found Colin Mercer not guilty and dismissed the theft charge arising from his removal of a drill from Ellen Voss’s shop. It denied the State of Oregon’s request for a conviction and an appropriate penalty, finding that the prosecution had not proved he took the drill without permission.

Mercer acknowledged picking up the drill and leaving without paying, but maintained that he understood the arrangement to be a loan. The court held that the messages exchanged with Voss supported that possibility and that unpaid removal alone did not establish an unauthorized taking.

No penalty was imposed, and no payment was ordered from either party to the other. The judgment noted that no separate monetary claim or supported amount was before the court.

The court identified permission as the sole material issue. Applying the supplied Rules 41 and 8, it said the State bore the burden of proving each required criminal element with reliable evidence; accusation or suspicion alone was insufficient.

Voss’s account established that Mercer left with the drill without paying and that she regarded it as merchandise. Her intention to sell it, however, did not by itself establish that she had not also agreed to lend it.

The earlier phone exchange contained an express request to borrow the drill for shelves until Saturday, followed by a positive but qualified response and a request that Mercer message before coming. Although Voss described her response as tentative, the record contained no further message explaining that it was not permission or withdrawing the proposed loan.

The pickup-day message said the drill was ready beside the counter. The court assessed it alongside the earlier exchange, finding it consistent with a contemplated loan and noting that it did not demand payment. The initial screenshot lacked the earlier conversation, but the fuller exchange was subsequently presented.

The evidence did not establish whether Mercer sent the requested advance message. The court declined to find either compliance or non-compliance, holding that this uncertainty could not be treated as proof against him or shift the burden onto him to establish permission.

The State relied on Voss’s account that she watched Mercer leave without paying and intended to sell the drill. It argued that the pickup-day message did not expressly authorize borrowing and that the earlier response was not unconditional permission.

The prosecution nevertheless acknowledged that it had no separate evidence showing whether Mercer messaged before arriving. It continued to seek a conviction and penalty, asking the court to weigh the unpaid removal and Voss’s account against the messages.

The defense argued that the exchanges concerned borrowing, not buying, and that no purchase arrangement had been made. It relied on Voss’s response to the loan request and her later readiness message, seeking a not-guilty verdict.

The dispute began when Mercer asked Voss to lend him the drill until Saturday. She responded positively while requesting advance notice. On pickup day, she told him it was ready beside the counter, and he collected it without paying.

The record included Voss’s account and the phone conversation, but no known witness supporting Mercer’s understanding of the arrangement. The meaning of the messages remained disputed throughout the proceeding.

The dismissal rests on the State’s failure to prove lack of authorization, rather than an affirmative finding that every detail of Mercer’s account was established. The outcome resolves the theft charge and the requested penalty on this record.