A jury instruction is the judge's oral explanation of the law governing a case. Jury instructions are given after the attorneys have presented all the evidence and have made final arguments, but before the jury begins deliberations. Improper explanations of the law to be applied in jury instructions are often the basis for later appeals.
Maine Instruction to Jury that Intent is not an Essential Element of Conversion In the state of Maine, there are specific instructions given to the jury regarding conversion cases, emphasizing that intent is not an essential element of conversion. Conversion refers to the wrongful act of exercising control over another person's property without their lawful authority or permission. The instruction to the jury helps clarify that the defendant's intent is not necessary to establish liability for conversion. Maine, like other jurisdictions, recognizes conversion as a strict liability tort, meaning that the defendant can be held liable for the consequences of their actions regardless of their intent. This principle is especially important in cases involving stolen or wrongfully acquired property, where the defendant's intent may be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. By emphasizing that intent is not essential, the instruction ensures that the court focuses on the act itself and its consequences. The instruction typically given to the jury in Maine conversion cases may vary slightly depending on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. However, some common elements of this instruction can be outlined as follows: 1. Elements of Conversion: The instruction would first outline the necessary elements to establish a claim of conversion, such as the defendant's exercise of control, over another person's property, without their lawful authority or permission. 2. Definition of Conversion: The instruction would provide a clear definition of conversion, emphasizing that it is an intentional act of control over another person's property, but the defendant's intent is not an essential factor in determining liability. 3. Strict Liability: The instruction would explain the concept of strict liability to the jury, highlighting that regardless of the defendant's knowledge or intent, they can be held liable for the consequences of their actions. 4. Factors to Consider: The instruction would advise the jury to focus on the defendant's actions rather than their intent. It may further elaborate on various factors, such as the defendant's awareness of their lack of authority or permission, the duration and extent of control exercised, and any harm caused to the rightful owner. 5. Burden of Proof: The instruction would clarify that the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff to establish conversion by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that it is more likely than not that the defendant committed the act of conversion. In Maine, these instructions may also be modified or supplemented based on other related legal doctrines, such as good faith defenses or privilege. However, the overarching concept remains the same — intent is not an essential element to establish conversion liability. Different types or variations of this instruction may exist depending on the specific circumstances of the conversion case. For instance, if the conversion involved a particular type of property (e.g., real estate, intellectual property, or personal belongings), there might be additional instructions tailored to those specific situations. Additionally, the court may also provide specific instructions if there are alternative theories of liability or elements that need to be considered.
