Columbus Municipal Court acquits shopper who left store with unpaid drill

Columbus Municipal Court found Evan Mercer not guilty of shoplifting and dismissed the charge after the State of Ohio failed to prove that he intended to steal a drill he left a store without paying for.

Mercer had asked for dismissal or a reduction of the charge, saying he forgot the drill was in his cart. The court granted dismissal, ordered no penalty or payment, and said the alternative request for a reduction was moot.

The receipt listed screws and a canvas bag, but not the drill. The court found that the receipt and the parties' accounts established nonpayment and possession when Mercer left, but those facts alone did not establish the required state of mind.

The State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mercer knowingly exercised control over the drill with the purpose of depriving its owner. The court said the drill's reported visibility outside could support an inference that he knew it was there, but the record did not establish what he could see inside the cart or whether that visibility reflected what he knew before leaving.

Witness 1 testified that Mercer put the bag in the cart after paying, but could not see what was beneath it. The court also considered Mercer's uncertainty about when he placed the bag over the drill, but said that uncertainty did not itself prove knowledge or an intent to deprive the owner.

Mercer's account of a mistake was not sworn or independently verified, and the court did not treat it as established fact. Even without accepting that explanation, the court concluded that the State's evidence did not leave it firmly convinced of the required intent.

The State sought a conviction, arguing that the unpaid drill, Mercer's departure with it and the box's visibility outside supported an inference that he knew it was in the cart. It acknowledged that the receipt did not prove intent and that it had no separate witness or record showing what Mercer could see or intended.

The defense denied an intent to steal and emphasized the receipt and Witness 1's inability to see beneath the bag. In an account saved during intake and relayed by counsel, Mercer said he had meant to compare prices, forgot the drill was under the bag and offered to return inside and pay when stopped.

The charge arose after Mercer paid for the screws and bag, then left with the drill in his cart. An employee stopped him outside.

The defense also raised uncertainty about the incident date and which historical version of Ohio's theft statute applied. The court did not resolve that question, saying the decisive issue was the State's failure to prove intent on the available evidence. Its order did not establish that Mercer's account of an accidental departure was true.