Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State of Israel asks the Court to convict Eitan Barak of theft concerning a drill taken from a shop after closing. Eitan asks the Court to reject that request. The supplied record contains no statutory text or other legal rules, so the Court applies the burden stated in the hearing record: the State must prove the material matters it relies on for conviction. The Court does not add legal elements or rules that were not supplied. 2. The parties have had a final opportunity to explain their positions. The State says no recording or independent witness to the conversation is available. The defense identifies no further proof of that conversation. The matter is therefore decided on the available record, not postponed in search of evidence the parties say they cannot provide. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Eitan took the shop’s drill; whether Yael gave permission before he took it; and whether the State proved that Eitan intended to steal it. The State bears the burden on each issue relevant to its request for conviction. Submissions of the parties 4. The State relies on the closing-time camera image showing Eitan leaving with a drill case, Yael’s reported denial that she authorized a loan, and the absence of a notebook entry. It accepts that the image cannot show whether permission was given. It argues that Eitan’s message the next morning about returning the drill does not establish prior permission and asks for a theft conviction. 5. The defense says Eitan understood Yael’s words as permission to borrow the drill overnight and intended to return it. It relies on the morning WhatsApp message and on Witness 1’s testimony that the notebook contained an earlier entry added after another employee returned a borrowed tool. The defense argues that the missing entry does not prove theft and asks that the State’s request be rejected. Evidence and findings 6. The camera image is presented as a still showing Eitan leaving after closing with a drill case. The defense accepts that Eitan carried the case. This is sufficient to establish that he took the case out. The image does not itself establish what was inside it or whether the taking was authorized. The parties’ submissions identify the item as the shop’s drill, and the dispute they present is permission and intent, not the identity of the item. 7. The State’s submissions report that Yael denied authorizing the loan. That is an allegation about what Yael said, not testimony from Yael in this record. The State expressly says there is no recording or independent witness to the conversation. The defense account, relayed through counsel and saved client answers, is that Eitan understood Yael’s words as permission to take the drill overnight. That account is not admitted witness testimony and is not independently verified. It is nevertheless part of the record and directly disputes the State’s account. 8. The morning WhatsApp message is presented as a dated message from Eitan to Yael: “Running late. I’ll bring the drill back after lunch.” It supports an intention to return the drill at that time. It does not establish what Yael said before Eitan took it, and it does not conclusively establish Eitan’s intent at the time of taking. 9. The record includes Witness 1’s admitted testimony that the notebook had no entry for Eitan’s drill but did contain an earlier entry added after another employee returned a borrowed tool. The absence of an entry is therefore established, but its significance is limited. The testimony shows that an entry could be made after a tool was returned; it does not prove that Eitan had permission or explain why no entry was made for this drill. Reasons 10. On the taking issue, the camera image and the defense’s acceptance establish that Eitan carried the case out. The image is limited as to the case’s contents, but the parties’ presentations treat the item as the shop’s drill. This issue is established. 11. On permission, the State bears the burden of proving its claim that the taking was unauthorized. The State’s account of Yael’s denial is relevant, but it is presented in submissions rather than through Yael’s testimony or independent corroboration. Eitan’s contrary account is also limited: it is attributed to him through counsel, not independently verified, and not admitted testimony. The Court does not treat either account as conclusively proved. The camera image and morning message do not resolve the conversation. The missing notebook entry does not decide whether permission was given, particularly because Witness 1’s testimony shows that entries could be added later. On this record, the State has not proved lack of permission. 12. On intent, the State relies on the taking after closing and the lack of a notebook entry. Those circumstances warrant consideration, but they do not settle Eitan’s intent. The message supports that he planned to return the drill, without proving prior permission or conclusively determining his state of mind when he took it. The competing accounts remain unresolved, and the notebook evidence is not decisive. The State has not proved intent to steal on the record presented. 13. The defense’s account is not accepted as established merely because the State has not proved its case. Rather, the State’s burden remains with the State, and the evidence does not resolve the material uncertainty in its favor. The Court therefore does not find that Yael definitely gave permission; it finds that the State did not prove that she did not. Nor does the Court find that the message alone proves Eitan lacked intent to steal; it finds that the State did not prove the required intent on this record. Final order 14. The State’s request for a theft conviction is denied. Eitan Barak is not convicted of theft on the evidence presented. The taking of the drill case is established, but lack of permission and intent to steal are not proven. No monetary relief is claimed or supported, and no payment is ordered.