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 Pennsylvania, the Instruction to Jury that Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prime Facial Evidence of Conversion is an important legal concept related to civil cases involving conversion claims. The instruction serves to guide the jury in determining whether the defendant's actions constitute conversion based on their refusal to return requested property. When a party claims that someone has committed conversion, they are alleging that the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully exercised control over their property, interfering with their right to possess it. The Pennsylvania Instruction to Jury emphasizing the demand for and refusal of possession helps establish a strong presumption of conversion. This instruction instructs the jury to consider the following key aspects in their deliberations: 1. Definition of Conversion: The instruction initially provides a clear definition of conversion, emphasizing that it involves the wrongful interference with another's property rights by exercising control over the property without permission. 2. Prime Facial Evidence: It explains that a prime facial evidence is a presumption that arises when a demand for the return of property is made, and the possessor or defendant refuses to comply with that demand. This refusal, combined with an existing relationship between the parties, shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to demonstrate a lawful basis for their actions. 3. Demand for Possession: The instruction highlights the importance of a clear and unequivocal demand for possession of the property in question. It instructs the jury to carefully assess the nature and manner of the demand made by the plaintiff. 4. Refusal of Possession: The instruction underscores that the defendant's refusal to comply with the demand must also be clear and unambiguous. It directs the jury to consider the evidence presented, including any explicit rejection or failure to return the property. These elements are crucial in determining whether the defendant's actions constitute conversion. It is important to note that the actual wording and content of the instruction may vary depending on the specific case, judge's preferences, and assigned legal counsel. Different types or variations of Pennsylvania Instructions to Jury that Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prime Facial Evidence of Conversion may exist based on the specific circumstances and nuances of a case, such as: 1. Instruction with Additional Elements: In complex cases or those involving unique circumstances, additional elements or factors may be incorporated into the instruction to achieve clarity and relevance. 2. Instruction with Burden Shifting Explanation: Some variations may include a more explicit explanation on how the burden of proof shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant based on the demand and the subsequent refusal of possession. 3. Modified Instruction for Specific Industries: Depending on the nature of the case, modifications may be made to the instruction to accommodate industry-specific terminology or guidelines. Overall, the Pennsylvania Instruction to Jury that Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prime Facial Evidence of Conversion serves as a crucial tool for the jury to evaluate and determine the presence of conversion in civil cases. It ensures that the jury considers all relevant aspects related to demand and refusal of possession, providing a clearer path for rendering fair and just verdicts.
