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.
Hawaii Instruction to Jury: When it comes to legal proceedings in Hawaii, there are specific instructions provided to juries to guide them in understanding the law and to make informed decisions. One such instruction pertains to the concept of demand for and refusal of possession, which serves as prima facie evidence of conversion. Understanding this instruction is crucial in cases where the possession of property is disputed, and a conversion claim is made. In Hawaii, the instruction to the jury regarding demand for and refusal of possession as prima facie evidence of conversion is as follows: 1. Hawaii Jury Instruction — Conversion: If the plaintiff claims that the defendant converted their property, the jury should consider the concept of demand for and refusal of possession. Evidence of such a demand and refusal by the defendant can be considered as prima facie evidence of conversion. 2. Hawaii Jury Instruction — Demand for Possession: In cases where it is alleged that the defendant wrongly possess the plaintiff's property, the jury should understand that demand for possession is necessary before a conversion claim. This instruction guides the jury to carefully evaluate whether a proper demand for possession was made by the plaintiff. 3. Hawaii Jury Instruction — Refusal of Possession: Furthermore, if the jury finds that the plaintiff made a lawful demand for possession of their property and the defendant refused to return it, this shall be considered prima facie evidence of conversion. The instruction emphasizes that the mere refusal to return the property can be indicative of wrongful conversion. 4. Hawaii Jury Instruction — Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion: When the jury determines that the demand for possession was made and refused, they should understand that such evidence creates a presumption of conversion. This instruction helps juries recognize that the burden of proof may shift to the defendant to provide a valid explanation or defense for their actions. 5. Hawaii Jury Instruction — Evaluation of Evidence: Finally, it is important for the jury to remember that the instruction regarding demand for and refusal of possession as prima facie evidence of conversion is not absolute. The jury must weigh all the evidence presented, consider any possible defenses, and ultimately make a fair determination based on the facts and applicable laws. In conclusion, the Hawaii Instruction to Jury regarding demand for and refusal of possession as prima facie evidence of conversion is a crucial guideline for juries to understand the legal implications and burden of proof in conversion cases. By considering this instruction, juries can evaluate the validity of a conversion claim, the existence of a proper demand for possession, and the implications of the defendant's refusal to return the property.Hawaii Instruction to Jury: When it comes to legal proceedings in Hawaii, there are specific instructions provided to juries to guide them in understanding the law and to make informed decisions. One such instruction pertains to the concept of demand for and refusal of possession, which serves as prima facie evidence of conversion. Understanding this instruction is crucial in cases where the possession of property is disputed, and a conversion claim is made. In Hawaii, the instruction to the jury regarding demand for and refusal of possession as prima facie evidence of conversion is as follows: 1. Hawaii Jury Instruction — Conversion: If the plaintiff claims that the defendant converted their property, the jury should consider the concept of demand for and refusal of possession. Evidence of such a demand and refusal by the defendant can be considered as prima facie evidence of conversion. 2. Hawaii Jury Instruction — Demand for Possession: In cases where it is alleged that the defendant wrongly possess the plaintiff's property, the jury should understand that demand for possession is necessary before a conversion claim. This instruction guides the jury to carefully evaluate whether a proper demand for possession was made by the plaintiff. 3. Hawaii Jury Instruction — Refusal of Possession: Furthermore, if the jury finds that the plaintiff made a lawful demand for possession of their property and the defendant refused to return it, this shall be considered prima facie evidence of conversion. The instruction emphasizes that the mere refusal to return the property can be indicative of wrongful conversion. 4. Hawaii Jury Instruction — Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion: When the jury determines that the demand for possession was made and refused, they should understand that such evidence creates a presumption of conversion. This instruction helps juries recognize that the burden of proof may shift to the defendant to provide a valid explanation or defense for their actions. 5. Hawaii Jury Instruction — Evaluation of Evidence: Finally, it is important for the jury to remember that the instruction regarding demand for and refusal of possession as prima facie evidence of conversion is not absolute. The jury must weigh all the evidence presented, consider any possible defenses, and ultimately make a fair determination based on the facts and applicable laws. In conclusion, the Hawaii Instruction to Jury regarding demand for and refusal of possession as prima facie evidence of conversion is a crucial guideline for juries to understand the legal implications and burden of proof in conversion cases. By considering this instruction, juries can evaluate the validity of a conversion claim, the existence of a proper demand for possession, and the implications of the defendant's refusal to return the property.
