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.
South Dakota Instruction to Jury: Demand for and Refusal of Possession as Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion Introduction: In South Dakota, when addressing cases involving conversion, the court provides specific instructions to the jury to consider the issue of demand for and refusal of possession. This instruction serves as crucial evidence in determining whether conversion has occurred. This article explores the significance of demand for and refusal of possession as prima facie evidence of conversion in South Dakota, highlighting its importance in various legal contexts. 1. Demand for and Refusal of Possession: Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion Explained: Demand for possession refers to a formal request made by the rightful owner to the possessor for the return of the property that the owner claims as their own. On the other hand, refusal of possession is when the defendant denies or fails to comply with the owner's demand for the property's return. In South Dakota, these actions are considered as prima facie evidence of conversion, indicating that there is a presumption of conversion based on these circumstances. 2. Elements of Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion in South Dakota: To establish prima facie evidence of conversion in South Dakota, certain elements must be satisfied: a. Ownership or Rightful Possession: The plaintiff must establish their ownership or rightful possession of the converted property. This can be done through presenting evidence such as documents of ownership or proof of permission to possess the property. b. Demand for Possession: The owner needs to demonstrate that a formal demand for possession was made to the defendant, clearly expressing the intent for the return of the property. The demand should be clear and unambiguous, preferably in writing to maintain a record. c. Refusal of Possession: The defendant's refusal or failure to comply with the explicit demand for possession is a crucial element in establishing conversion. The refusal can be explicit, where the defendant explicitly denies the request, or implicit, where the defendant neglects to respond or fails to return the property within a reasonable time frame. 3. Different Types of South Dakota Instruction to Jury on Demand for and Refusal of Possession Cases: a. Standard South Dakota Instruction: The standard instruction provided to the jury in demand for and refusal of possession cases tackles the general principles and elements of prima facie evidence of conversion. It instructs the jury on how to evaluate the evidence presented and how to reach a verdict based on the circumstances of the demand and refusal of possession. b. Specific Industry or Context-based Instructions: In some cases, the South Dakota court may provide specific instructions to the jury based on the industry or context in which the conversion took place. For example, if the conversion occurs within a banking or financial institution, specific instructions tailored to the nature of the industry may be given. c. Slight Variations in Instruction Language: While the core elements of prima facie evidence of conversion remain constant, there may be slight variations in the specific language used in different South Dakota instructions. These variations ensure that the instruction aligns accurately with the particular circumstances and facts of the case at hand. Conclusion: Demand for and refusal of possession act as vital evidence of conversion in South Dakota. The instruction provided to the jury guides them in evaluating the evidence and reaching a well-informed verdict. The various types of instructions, including standard instructions and specific industry-based instructions, ensure that the jury fully understands the implications and context surrounding the demand for and refusal of possession in conversion cases.South Dakota Instruction to Jury: Demand for and Refusal of Possession as Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion Introduction: In South Dakota, when addressing cases involving conversion, the court provides specific instructions to the jury to consider the issue of demand for and refusal of possession. This instruction serves as crucial evidence in determining whether conversion has occurred. This article explores the significance of demand for and refusal of possession as prima facie evidence of conversion in South Dakota, highlighting its importance in various legal contexts. 1. Demand for and Refusal of Possession: Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion Explained: Demand for possession refers to a formal request made by the rightful owner to the possessor for the return of the property that the owner claims as their own. On the other hand, refusal of possession is when the defendant denies or fails to comply with the owner's demand for the property's return. In South Dakota, these actions are considered as prima facie evidence of conversion, indicating that there is a presumption of conversion based on these circumstances. 2. Elements of Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion in South Dakota: To establish prima facie evidence of conversion in South Dakota, certain elements must be satisfied: a. Ownership or Rightful Possession: The plaintiff must establish their ownership or rightful possession of the converted property. This can be done through presenting evidence such as documents of ownership or proof of permission to possess the property. b. Demand for Possession: The owner needs to demonstrate that a formal demand for possession was made to the defendant, clearly expressing the intent for the return of the property. The demand should be clear and unambiguous, preferably in writing to maintain a record. c. Refusal of Possession: The defendant's refusal or failure to comply with the explicit demand for possession is a crucial element in establishing conversion. The refusal can be explicit, where the defendant explicitly denies the request, or implicit, where the defendant neglects to respond or fails to return the property within a reasonable time frame. 3. Different Types of South Dakota Instruction to Jury on Demand for and Refusal of Possession Cases: a. Standard South Dakota Instruction: The standard instruction provided to the jury in demand for and refusal of possession cases tackles the general principles and elements of prima facie evidence of conversion. It instructs the jury on how to evaluate the evidence presented and how to reach a verdict based on the circumstances of the demand and refusal of possession. b. Specific Industry or Context-based Instructions: In some cases, the South Dakota court may provide specific instructions to the jury based on the industry or context in which the conversion took place. For example, if the conversion occurs within a banking or financial institution, specific instructions tailored to the nature of the industry may be given. c. Slight Variations in Instruction Language: While the core elements of prima facie evidence of conversion remain constant, there may be slight variations in the specific language used in different South Dakota instructions. These variations ensure that the instruction aligns accurately with the particular circumstances and facts of the case at hand. Conclusion: Demand for and refusal of possession act as vital evidence of conversion in South Dakota. The instruction provided to the jury guides them in evaluating the evidence and reaching a well-informed verdict. The various types of instructions, including standard instructions and specific industry-based instructions, ensure that the jury fully understands the implications and context surrounding the demand for and refusal of possession in conversion cases.
