Multnomah County Circuit Court finds Nolan Price not guilty in coffee shop tablet theft case

The Multnomah County Circuit Court found Nolan Price not guilty of taking a tablet from Juniper & Beam Coffee, denying the State of Oregon’s request for a finding of guilt. Price sought a finding that the pickup was mistaken rather than intentional theft.

The court held that the State established the physical taking but failed to prove Price knew the tablet was not his when he picked it up. Its decision rested on that evidentiary gap, not on acceptance of every detail of his explanation.

The decisive question was Price’s knowledge at the service counter. The court applied ORS 161.095(2) and ORS 161.115(1), addressing the requirement for a culpable mental state—the state of mind required for the relevant elements of an offence.

The judgment expressly noted that the supplied record did not contain the theft statute or a separate statement of the criminal standard of proof. It confined its analysis to the mental-state question identified by the parties and prior court directions.

The time-stamped security footage showed Price picking up a black tablet, putting it in his backpack and leaving. However, the silent, wide-angle view was partly blocked by a menu sign and did not reveal the orange inventory sticker or screen clearly enough to establish what he saw.

The court accepted that knowledge could be inferred from circumstances. But the deliberate act of carrying away the tablet did not itself establish that Price recognised it as the cafe’s property; the footage was also consistent with a mistaken pickup.

A screenshot of a 10:18 p.m. text to Price’s sister supported his account of a mistake and a plan to return the tablet. No confirmation from his sister was recorded, and the message did not independently establish when he first recognised the error.

The court also treated his accounts of similar tablets nearby, discovery at home and preparations for return as statements relayed by counsel, not independently verified evidence. Overnight retention and the alleged failure to contact the cafe or police raised questions, but the court found the later conduct ambiguous rather than proof of knowledge at pickup.

The State argued that the manner of taking, removal from the cafe and overnight possession allowed the court to infer Price knew the tablet was not his. It acknowledged that the footage did not show him reading the sticker or examining the screen and identified no stronger evidence of his knowledge at the counter.

In its final position, the State sought guilt only if that inference established knowing theft; otherwise, it requested the mistake-based alternative it had previously advanced.

Price conceded taking the cafe’s tablet. His defence argued that his own similar black tablet was in the same area and that a closing-time rush explained the pickup.

The defence said Price noticed the orange sticker only at home, did not use or unlock the device, and intended to return it the next morning. It relied on the text message and his account that police intervened before he could make the return.

The prosecution arose from Price leaving Juniper & Beam Coffee with its black tablet. Ownership and the physical removal were not disputed; the contested issue was whether the pickup amounted to knowing theft.

The judgment orders no payment and decides only the charge presented. Its significance is the distinction between proving a taking and proving the required mental state: the acquittal does not separately establish that every part of Price’s account was true.