Bryan v. Fawkes, 61 V.I. 201

Background

Alicia Hansen was convicted by a federal jury of three misdemeanors for willful failure to file Virgin Islands income tax returns (2002–2004) and sentenced to suspended jail time and probation; she was not pardoned.
The Revised Organic Act disqualifies persons convicted of a felony or a “crime involving moral turpitude” from serving in the Legislature unless pardoned. Hansen nevertheless served in the 29th and 30th Legislatures and sought certification as a candidate for the 31st Legislature.
Adelbert Bryan, Chair of the St. Croix Board of Elections, petitioned the Superior Court under 18 V.I.C. § 412 to set aside the Supervisor of Elections’ certification of Hansen for the 31st Legislature, arguing her convictions involved moral turpitude.
The Superior Court dismissed Bryan’s petition, deferring to the Supervisor’s conclusion that Hansen was qualified. Bryan appealed to the Virgin Islands Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered separation-of-powers and jurisdictional challenges (whether the Legislature or courts may determine candidate qualifications and whether the Superior Court or District Court has jurisdiction) and then addressed whether willful failure to file a tax return is a crime involving moral turpitude.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bryan)	Defendant's Argument (Hansen / Supervisor Fawkes)	Held
1) Who may adjudicate candidate qualifications?	Boards/courts may review candidate eligibility before a legislature convenes; the Supervisor’s certification is reviewable.	Hansen: §6(g) vests sole authority to judge qualifications in the Legislature, barring court review.	Courts and election boards may review candidate qualifications pre-convening; §6(g) applies only to members after seating. Rejected Hansen’s separation-of-powers bar.
2) Which court has jurisdiction under 18 V.I.C. §412?	Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear certification challenges (District Court references are obsolete after jurisdictional reforms).	Hansen: §412’s reference to “district court” means federal District Court should hear it.	Superior Court has jurisdiction; post-1991 statutory changes vested local civil adjudication in the Superior Court.
3) Standing to bring a §412 petition	Bryan: §412 is silent on standing and should be broadly construed; Fawkes waived any standing objection by inviting judicial review and defending on the merits.	Hansen: Bryan lacks concrete injury; generalized grievance; should be dismissed.	Standing is a waived claim in local courts if not timely asserted; Fawkes waived standing; Bryan’s petition proceeds.
4) Is willful failure to file a tax return a "crime involving moral turpitude"?	Bryan: "Willfully" requires evil intent; fraud is implicit in willfulness, so §1524 convictions involve moral turpitude and disqualify Hansen.	Fawkes/Hansen: The phrase is vague; no clear precedent that misdemeanor failure to file is moral turpitude; Supervisor’s certification should be deferred to.	Held: Willful failure to file (33 V.I.C. §1524), modeled on federal §7203, requires willfulness equivalent to fraud; under Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Jordan, Spies, Bishop), such crimes involve moral turpitude. Court reverses Superior Court and directs removal from ballot.

Key Cases Cited

Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (Sup. Ct.) (fraudulent crimes are crimes involving moral turpitude)
Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492 (Sup. Ct.) (willfulness in tax crimes requires wrongful intent; relationship between §§7201 and 7203)
Bishop v. United States, 412 U.S. 346 (Sup. Ct.) (interpretation that "willfully" has same meaning in §§7201 and 7203)
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (Sup. Ct.) (distinguishing the legislature’s power to judge qualifications from judicial definition of those qualifications)
Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343 (Sup. Ct.) (willfulness central to conviction under §7203)
Kendall v. Russell, 572 F.3d 126 (3d Cir.) (separation-of-powers and local jurisdictional principles under the Revised Organic Act)