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.
Title: Wisconsin Instruction to Jury: Demand for and Refusal of Possession as Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion Keywords: Wisconsin jury instruction, demand for possession, refusal of possession, prima facie evidence, conversion, types, legal proceedings, civil law, criminal law, elements. Introduction: In the state of Wisconsin, jury instructions play a crucial role in guiding jurors throughout legal proceedings. One such instruction of significance involves the principle that when a demand for possession is made and subsequently refused, it can serve as prima facie evidence of conversion. This instruction provides guidelines for jurors to consider the demand for and refusal of possession as an element in determining whether a conversion has taken place. Let's explore this instruction further, including its variations and implications in both civil and criminal cases. 1. Wisconsin Instruction to Jury on Demand for and Refusal of Possession as Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion: Under this instruction, jurors are informed that if the plaintiff makes a demand for possession of a particular item or property, and the defendant refuses to comply with the said demand, such refusal can constitute prima facie evidence of conversion. This means that the refusal can be considered initial proof of the defendant's wrongful intent to exercise control over the plaintiff's property. 2. Types of Wisconsin Instruction to Jury on Demand for and Refusal of Possession: a) Civil Law: In civil cases, such as torts or contracts, the Wisconsin Instruction to Jury on Demand for and Refusal of Possession as Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion instructs jurors to consider the elements of the plaintiff's demand, the defendant's refusal, and other relevant circumstances to determine if conversion occurred. The instruction emphasizes that the refusal should be unjustified and without lawful excuse to be considered prima facie evidence. b) Criminal Law: In criminal cases, the Wisconsin Instruction to Jury on Demand for and Refusal of Possession as Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion provides guidance to jurors in cases where conversion is a criminal offense. Here, the instruction highlights that the refusal must be intentional and without lawful authority to be considered prima facie evidence. Jurors are then tasked with assessing the evidence presented to determine if conversion beyond a reasonable doubt has occurred. 3. Considerations for Jurors: a) Contextual Factors: Jurors are reminded to evaluate the entire situation and consider the context surrounding the demand for and refusal of possession. This includes analyzing any explanations or justifications provided by the defendant for the refusal, and assessing whether they hold legal merit. b) Burden of Proof: While the refusal of possession may indicate evidence of conversion, jurors must remember that it is not conclusive proof. The burden of proving conversion beyond a reasonable doubt still rests upon the plaintiff before a conviction can be reached. c) Additional Evidence: Jurors should carefully weigh the presented evidence in conjunction with the demand for and refusal of possession. Corroborating evidence, such as witness testimonies, documentations, or other supporting proofs, may provide further clarity to the case. Conclusion: The Wisconsin Instruction to Jury on Demand for and Refusal of Possession as Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion represents an important element in civil and criminal proceedings. It guides jurors on the potential significance of a defendant's refusal to comply with a valid demand for possession. By considering this instruction, jurors can better assess whether conversion has occurred and align their verdict based on the preponderance of evidence in civil cases, or beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
