A trespass to personal property is t he use of someone's property without person. A conversion occurs when personal property is taken by a defendant and kept from its true owner without permission of the owner. Conversion is the civil side of the crime of theft. Demand and refusal are necessary for the maintenance of an action for conversion in all cases in which defendant was rightfully in possession.
In Michigan, one type of instruction to the jury that is commonly used in conversion cases is the instruction that demand for and refusal of possession of personal property by the defendant can be considered as prima facie evidence of conversion. Prima facie evidence refers to evidence that, if unexplained or not rebutted, is sufficient to establish a fact or convince a jury of a certain proposition. This instruction is based on the legal doctrine that when someone refuses to return or deliver possession of personal property after a proper demand is made, it raises a presumption that they have wrongfully converted the property to their own use. In other words, the refusal to surrender the property is seen as strong evidence of wrongdoing. However, it is important to note that this instruction is not conclusive evidence of conversion. The defendant still has an opportunity to provide an explanation or rebut the presumption of conversion. Factors such as mistake, misunderstanding, or other legitimate reasons for not returning the property can be presented as a defense. Other variations of this instruction may include specific elements that need to be satisfied for the presumption to arise. For example, some instructions may require a clear and unequivocal demand for possession, while others may require an intentional refusal to return the property. The specific wording of the instruction may vary depending on the circumstances and the judge's discretion. In conclusion, the instruction to the jury that demand for and refusal of possession is prima facie evidence of conversion is an important legal concept in Michigan. It helps guide the jury in assessing whether the defendant has wrongfully converted personal property. Different variations of this instruction may exist, but the fundamental principle remains that refusal to surrender possession raises a presumption of conversion, which can be rebutted with appropriate evidence and arguments.
