Original in-game verdict

Background 1. This matter concerns the State of Oregon’s allegation that Ellis Ward took wireless headphones from the Riverfront Market kiosk without paying for them. The hearing record includes a self-checkout transaction log, an employee account from Jordan Pike, and Ellis Ward’s competing account that he attempted tap-to-pay, received an error, and was stopped before he could get help. 2. Both sides were given repeated opportunities to explain the key timing dispute: whether payment failed before Ellis moved away from the checkout, or whether the payment issue was only mentioned after he was stopped. The court has considered the full record, including the parties’ final submissions. Issues for determination 3. The central issues are: (a) whether the headphones were unpaid because of theft or a failed payment attempt; (b) whether Ellis crossed the exit line with unpaid headphones; and (c) what Ellis said after being stopped, and what that statement shows about timing and intent. 4. Under the supplied law, the State had to prove the material elements requiring culpability. The court must decide whether the record shows a knowing theft, or whether the evidence leaves a reasonable unresolved possibility of a failed payment attempt. Submissions of the parties 5. The State submitted that the transaction log showed the headphones were scanned and no payment was completed, and that Jordan Pike saw Ellis cross the painted exit line with the unpaid item. The State also relied on Jordan’s account that Ellis said his phone “must not have gone through” only after being stopped. 6. The defense submitted that Ellis tapped his phone at self-checkout, saw an unclear error screen, believed the reader malfunctioned, and moved toward the service counter to get help. The defense said Ellis immediately offered to pay when approached and argued that the transaction log proves only that payment was incomplete, not that Ellis intended theft. Evidence and findings 7. The transaction log is reliable evidence that a headphone item was scanned and no completed payment or receipt appears in the record. That is strong proof that the item was unpaid at the relevant time. But the log does not show what appeared on Ellis’s phone or terminal, and it does not by itself distinguish between theft and a failed payment attempt. 8. Jordan Pike’s account supports the State on two points: that Ellis moved away from the checkout area with the item, and that Ellis later said his phone “must not have gone through.” However, Jordan also could not say whether the payment terminal displayed an error before Ellis walked away. That limits the weight of the account on the key question of Ellis’s knowledge. 9. Ellis’s account is not independently verified, but it is internally consistent across the record. He says he tapped to pay, saw an unclear error screen, put the headphones in his tote because he was carrying coffee, and moved toward the service counter to get help. The court cannot treat that account as proven simply because it was repeated, but it remains a plausible explanation that the State did not disprove. 10. On the exit-line issue, the record contains a direct conflict. Jordan says Ellis crossed the painted exit line; Ellis says he did not make any move toward the exit meant as stealing and that he was headed toward the service counter. There is no independent evidence in the record resolving that conflict. 11. On the post-stop statement, the State’s reading is possible: Ellis may have mentioned a payment issue only after confrontation. But the defense’s reading is also possible: Ellis may have already attempted payment, seen an error, and then repeated that problem after being stopped. The timing and meaning of the statement are not established with enough certainty to carry the State’s burden on intent. Reasons 12. The State’s strongest evidence is the unpaid transaction log, which shows that the headphones were not paid for. But unpaid status alone is not the same as theft. The court must decide whether the State proved the missing payment was the result of a knowing taking rather than a failed attempt. 13. The State did not produce evidence showing what Ellis saw on the terminal, whether he received an error, or whether he knew the payment had failed before moving away. Jordan Pike’s testimony helps the State, but it does not close that gap. Because the defense offered a coherent alternative explanation supported by Ellis’s repeated statements, the court cannot say the State proved the culpable mental state on this record. 14. The exit-line dispute also remains unresolved. The court cannot turn one witness’s account into a conclusive finding when the other side directly denies it and no independent proof settles the point. The same is true for the timing of Ellis’s post-stop words. The record supports competing inferences, and the State has not carried the burden of resolving them in its favor. 15. For those reasons, the State has not proven the material issues needed to sustain the charge on this hearing record. That does not mean the court finds Ellis’s account affirmatively established in every detail; it means the State did not meet its burden to prove theft rather than a failed payment attempt. Final order 16. The court finds the issues of payment-failure-or-attempted-payment, movement-past-exit-line, and post-stop-explanation not proven in the State’s favor. 17. Judgment is entered for the defendant, Ellis Ward. The charges are not sustained on this record and are dismissed. 18. No monetary award is made. No costs or interest are awarded in this judgment.