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. Proof of demand and refusal is not essential to the maintenance of an action for conversion when the conversion is otherwise established.
West Virginia Instruction to Jury as to When Demand is not Necessary in Constituting Conversion: Conversion is a legal term used to describe the unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over someone else's personal property. In West Virginia, certain situations may arise where a demand for the property's return is not necessary to constitute conversion. This instruction to the jury aims to clarify when a demand is not required in such cases. 1. Lack of ownership or lawful possession: If the defendant has no lawful ownership or possession of the property at the time of conversion, no demand is necessary. This means that even without a prior demand, the defendant can still be held liable for conversion if they wrongfully take control of property that belongs to another without permission. 2. Clear intent to assert ownership rights: If the defendant's actions clearly show that they are asserting their ownership rights over the property, it may be deemed unnecessary for the plaintiff to make a demand for its return. For example, if the defendant sells the property, disposes of it, or claims it as their own without any valid justification, the jury may find that demand is not required for conversion to be established. 3. Willful, intentional, or malicious conduct: In cases where the defendant's conduct is willful, intentional, or malicious, a demand may not be necessary to prove conversion. If the evidence suggests that the defendant acted with full knowledge that they were wrongfully exercising control over another person's property, the jury may determine that demand is irrelevant in constituting conversion. 4. Destruction, alteration, or damage to the property: If the defendant purposefully damages, alters, or destroys the property in question, demand may not be necessary. This is particularly applicable when the harm caused to the property is irreversible or significant, indicating an intentional interference with the plaintiff's rights. 5. Inherent impossibility for return: In cases where it is inherently impossible to return the property, a demand is not required. For instance, if the defendant, through their actions, permanently deprives the plaintiff of the property or alters its nature in a way that renders its return impossible, the jury may find that the lack of demand does not affect the claim of conversion. 6. Other exceptions recognized by West Virginia law: West Virginia law recognizes additional exceptions where a demand is not necessary to constitute conversion. These exceptions may vary depending on the specific circumstances and facts of the case. It is important for the jury to be aware that these situations may exempt the plaintiff from making a demand for the return of the property in order to establish a claim of conversion. Therefore, the jury must carefully consider the evidence and evaluate whether the actions of the defendant, along with the specific circumstances of the case, justify a finding of conversion without the requirement of a demand. Note: The specific types of West Virginia Instructions to the Jury as to When Demand is not Necessary in Constituting Conversion may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the particular case. It is advisable to consult the relevant West Virginia statutes and case law for a comprehensive understanding of these instructions.
