Plea agreement resolves tile saw theft dispute with misdemeanor plea and documented return

A plea agreement resolves the tile saw theft dispute involving Evan Mercer through a plea to a specified low-level misdemeanor theft charge and the prompt return of the saw. The prosecution had sought a theft conviction and return of the property, or restitution for proven unrecovered loss, in a criminal trial court in Dayton.

Mercer admitted taking the saw from his former employer but maintained that he understood he could borrow it for the weekend. The prosecution disputed that understanding and relied on his failure to return it after a next-day demand. The recorded resolution is an agreement, not a judicial finding resolving those competing accounts.

The agreement ties the property remedy to the saw’s condition and any remaining documented loss. It does not specify a restitution amount or establish that additional loss occurred.

• A plea to a specific low-level misdemeanor theft charge identified in the written agreement.
• Prompt, documented return of the tile saw intact.
• Restitution limited to documented unrecovered loss beyond the saw’s return, with none payable if no further loss is proven.
• No additional plea conditions.

The prosecution’s account was that Mercer knowingly took the shop’s saw without permission and intended to deprive the shop of it. It relied on the instruction that he take only personal belongings after his employment ended, video showing him loading the saw, and a Saturday message demanding its return that day.

The message stated that Mercer had no right to take the saw and showed as read. He did not respond in writing that day, and the saw had not been returned after the demand. The prosecution argued that claimed permission to borrow it did not explain keeping it after that message.

Mercer’s position was that he understood the saw was available to borrow for the weekend. The record also states that tools had previously been lent to employees, although only the manager could authorize removal of store property. Mercer said the saw was at his place and could be returned.

The dispute arose after Mercer’s employment ended on a Friday afternoon. Later that evening, he loaded the tile saw into his vehicle. The demand for its return followed on Saturday morning.

The video documented removal but contained no audio or earlier conversation, limiting what it could establish about permission. It also did not show Mercer trying to conceal the saw. No termination letter had been provided to him, and the manager could not state why he had been dismissed.

The agreement sets a misdemeanor plea and property-return terms without resolving in a recorded judgment whether Mercer originally believed he had permission. The supplied record does not establish that the plea was entered, that the saw was returned, or that any further loss was proved.