Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State of Oregon charged Colin Mercer in connection with taking a drill from Ellen Voss’s shop. The State asks for a theft conviction and an appropriate penalty. The defense asks for a not-guilty verdict. 2. The parties agree in their submissions that Colin picked up the drill and left without paying. The dispute is whether he had permission to take it as a loan. The record contains Ellen’s account and messages between Ellen and Colin. No amount of money or other specific penalty is established in the record. Issues for determination 3. The sole material issue is whether the State proved that Colin took the drill without permission. The State bears the burden of proving each required criminal element with reliable evidence. The supplied rules state that accusation or suspicion alone is insufficient and that each element must be proven (Rule 41, elements-must-be-proven; Rule 8, presumption-and-proof). Submissions of the parties 4. The State argues that Ellen saw Colin leave with the drill without paying and intended to sell it. It says the pickup-day message—that the drill was ready beside the counter—did not expressly authorize a loan. The State also acknowledges that it has no separate evidence showing whether Colin sent the message Ellen had requested before he came (exhibit-3-e1; statement-1; statement-5; statement-7; statement-9). 5. The defense argues that Colin asked to borrow the drill and Ellen agreed. It relies on her reply, “That should work,” and the pickup-day message saying the drill was ready. It asks for a not-guilty verdict (exhibit-4-e3; exhibit-4-e2; statement-2; statement-4; statement-6; statement-8). Evidence and findings 6. Ellen’s presented account says she watched Colin leave with the drill, received no payment, intended to sell it, and did not call out to him before he left (exhibit-3-e1). This supports the finding that Colin took the drill from the shop without paying. It also supports that Ellen regarded the drill as merchandise. But the account’s description of her intention to sell does not, by itself, establish that she had not also agreed to lend it to Colin. 7. The earlier messages show Colin asking, “Could I borrow that drill for my shelves until Saturday?” Ellen replied, “That should work. Message me before you come.” (exhibit-4-e3). The messages support a contemplated loan and a positive, though qualified, response. Ellen’s position that the reply was tentative is noted, but the record contains no further message explaining that it was not permission or withdrawing the proposed loan. 8. The pickup-day message says, “The drill is ready for you. It’s beside the counter.” (exhibit-4-e2). The message does not expressly say “borrow,” but it is consistent with the earlier discussion and does not demand payment. Its initial screenshot lacked the earlier conversation; the fuller exchange was later presented. The messages are readable and relevant, but their meaning must be assessed together rather than treating either text as conclusive on its own. 9. The record does not establish whether Colin sent the requested message before coming. The State expressly acknowledges this gap (statement-7). Ellen’s account that she did not call out as he left does not answer that question. I therefore do not find either that Colin complied with the request or that he failed to do so. Reasons 10. The State has shown an unpaid removal, but that fact does not resolve permission. The central written evidence begins with an explicit request to borrow the drill and a response that “should” work, followed by a request to message before coming. The later message that the drill was ready for Colin is consistent with the proposed loan. It is also true that the texts do not expressly confirm that the requested message was sent, and the pickup-day text does not restate the loan terms. 11. Those uncertainties do not shift the burden to Colin. Under the supplied criminal rules, the State must prove the unauthorized taking; Colin is not required to prove that he complied with the messaging request or to establish permission as a separate claim. The State candidly concedes that the record cannot show whether the message was sent. The court cannot treat that unknown fact as proof against Colin. 12. Ellen’s account is direct evidence that Colin left with the drill unpaid, but it does not overcome the written messages on the question of permission. Her stated intention to sell the drill and her failure to call out are relevant, yet neither excludes the possibility that she agreed to lend it. The messages provide concrete support for that possibility. Applying the burden in Rules 41 and 8, the State has not proven the required lack of authorization on this record. This is not a finding that every detail of Colin’s account is established; it is a finding that the State’s proof does not establish the charge. 13. The State’s request for a conviction and penalty is therefore denied. No separate monetary claim or supported amount is before the court, and no penalty can be imposed on this record. Final order 14. The charge against Colin Mercer is dismissed. Colin Mercer is found not guilty. The State of Oregon’s request for a theft conviction and penalty is denied. No payment is ordered from either party to the other.