Portland criminal court dismisses theft charge over unpaid drill taken toward exit

The Portland criminal court dismissed the theft charge against Evan Kline after finding that the State of Oregon had not proved he intended to take an unpaid drill without paying. The state sought a conviction; Kline sought dismissal or, alternatively, a lesser charge.

The court imposed no lesser charge, saying none had been established on the record. It also ordered no monetary relief.

The central question was what Kline intended when he carried the drill past checkout and toward the exit. The court said that route was meaningful evidence and could support an inference of theft, but it did not reliably settle his intent.

The state reported that an employee observed the route and that video showed it. As described to the court, the video did not reveal what was said. The employee's reported lack of memory about a price-check instruction did not establish whether an instruction had been given.

Kline's admission that the drill was unpaid established nonpayment, not intent by itself. The court also declined to treat his explanation or the claimed phone note as proven: the note was not presented as an exhibit, and his account was not presented as testimony.

That lack of confirmation did not shift the burden to Kline. The state had to prove the charge, and the court concluded that the route toward the exit was insufficient to resolve the uncertainty about intent.

The state argued that carrying an unpaid drill past checkout and toward the exit supported a finding of theft. It acknowledged that the route did not reveal what the employee said and that the employee's lack of recollection did not prove no instruction was given.

The defense said Kline believed an employee had directed him toward the entrance for a price check. It relied on a described phone note about checking a drill's price under $100 as support for an intention to shop rather than steal.

Kline's account was that he wanted to buy the drill but could not find its price. He admitted moving toward the exit with it unpaid and said he did not recall whether it was later left, returned or taken.

The dismissal does not establish that an employee gave the alleged instruction or that the phone note was authentic. The court also said the alternative request for a lesser charge identified no separate offense with elements and supporting proof in the supplied record.