Multnomah County Circuit Court denies theft allegation over former employee’s laptop pickup

The Multnomah County Circuit Court denied the theft allegation against Evan Mercer, finding that Oregon had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to steal a laptop from his former workplace. The State had sought a theft conviction and a proportionate sentence. No monetary relief was ordered.

Mercer admitted taking the laptop after closing, the day after his employment ended. The decisive question was not simply whether the shop owner approved that pickup, but whether Mercer believed an earlier agreement allowing him to borrow the laptop for the weekend still applied.

The complete Thursday message exchange provided direct support for permission to use the spare laptop at home for a course that weekend. It did not address what would happen if Mercer’s employment ended or specify a return time. Its wording also conflicted with the owner’s account that the approval concerned a customer demonstration.

The judge accepted that the circumstances supported suspicion: Mercer entered after closing using an unchanged door code, departed from his usual pickup practice and took the laptop without notice. But an unauthorized pickup did not, by itself, establish an intention to steal.

Important gaps remained. The record did not establish how the end of Mercer’s employment had been communicated to him. A Sunday demand for the laptop’s return showed as delivered, but there was no read receipt or reply proving he knew of it then.

An officer’s note recorded contact with Mercer on Tuesday morning and receipt of the undamaged laptop that afternoon. Mercer described it as a loan. The court treated that explanation as self-serving and inconclusive, but consistent with the documented weekend permission. Return after police contact did not resolve his intent when he took it.

The State argued that permission was tied to Mercer’s employment and work demonstrations. It relied on the after-hours entry, lack of notice, Sunday demand and delayed return as a sequence showing he knew his authority had ended.

The defence acknowledged that the Thursday exchange did not conclusively establish continuing permission after termination. Its argument was narrower: the express weekend approval left reasonable doubt about whether Mercer believed he was borrowing rather than stealing. It also accepted that returning the laptop after police contact did not itself prove innocence.

Mercer’s employment at Cedar Relay Repair in Portland ended Friday. He collected the laptop Saturday, received a return demand Sunday and handed it over Tuesday. Witness 1’s admitted testimony described the owner’s signed account, including that no Saturday pickup was authorized and no written cancellation of the borrowing arrangement was sent.

The judgment was confined to the allegation and evidence presented; no statute defining the charge was supplied. It did not establish that the owner approved Saturday’s pickup, that permission necessarily survived termination or that Mercer’s explanation was conclusively true.