The retail-theft charge against former Kane County Board member Mark Davoust was dismissed three days after his September 27 arrest, before his first scheduled court appearance. Shaw Local reported that the allegation concerned $161.90 in merchandise at a St. Charles Meijer. Davoust was accused of leaving without paying; the dismissal was not a court finding about what happened.
The disputed question was intent
Kane County State’s Attorney Jamie Mosser told Shaw Local she dismissed the charge because she did not believe prosecutors could prove Davoust knowingly intended to deprive the store of its merchandise. She also said the store and St. Charles police had probable cause for the arrest. Those statements describe two distinct decisions: the reported basis to make an arrest and the prosecutor’s assessment of whether the evidence could establish the required state of mind in court.
In its account of the police report, Shaw Local said Davoust told police he may have forgotten to pay as he shopped for several items and moved through the store. The report account also says he offered to pay when stopped, but the store declined and issued a trespass notice. These are reported descriptions and explanations, not findings tested at a hearing.
A separate court case is not a precedent for this dismissal
A limited point of comparison comes from a different case: in a 2020 nonprecedential Rule 23 order involving a Du Page County burglary conviction, the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, said a trial court could infer intent from evidence that the defendant hid behind his girlfriend while removing a watch from its package at Kohl’s. The order involved a burglary charge and different conduct; it does not resolve what prosecutors could prove in Davoust’s retail-theft case.
Davoust’s case ended before a judge heard evidence, so the public account does not establish whether a court would have found that he knowingly took the merchandise without paying. The available explanation for the dismissal is Mosser’s reported assessment of proof, alongside her statement that the arrest had probable cause.
