Duggins v. People, 2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 14

Duggins was convicted of making fraudulent claims upon the Virgin Islands government under 14 V.I.C. § 843(3) after a jury trial.
Trial evidence showed Duggins, while a supervisor at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, directed a subordinate to remove a lien from his vehicle despite knowledge of its validity.
Duggins challenged the conviction on four grounds: lack of a specific intent jury instruction, sufficiency of evidence, conspiracy variance, and prosecutorial misconduct.
The Superior Court instructed the jury that the defendant must knowingly make a false statement, and Duggins objected to the instruction.
The court analyzed potential statutory mens rea interpretation, the applicability of 14 V.I.C. § 844 and the conspiracy evidence, and prosecutorial conduct claims.
The Virgin Islands Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error on any of the asserted grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not giving a specific intent instruction	Duggins argues for specific intent required under 843(3).	People contend only knowing conduct is required.	No error; 843(3) requires knowing false statements.
Whether 14 V.I.C. § 844 false token/writing requirement applies to 843(3)	844 applies to 843(3) prosecutions via false token/writing.	844 does not apply because government is not a person under § 41.	844 does not apply to 843(3); evidence sufficient without token/writing.
Whether evidence of a conspiracy created an impermissible variance from the charged Information	Witness testimony suggested a broader conspiracy beyond charged scope.	No conspiracy charge; no error from related testimony.	No plain error; no conspiracy charged or proven; no variance.
Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred based on questions about conspiracy	Prosecutor allegedly elicited impermissible conspiracy testimony.	Defense counsel elicited the testimony; no misconduct by the People.	No prosecutorial misconduct; defense elicited the contested testimony.

Gov’t of the V.I. v. Rodriguez, 423 F.2d 9 (3d Cir. 1970) (importing mens rea of ‘knowingly’ where none explicit)
Bowry v. People of the Virgin Islands, 52 V.I. 264 (V.I. 2009) (requires specific intent for fraud-like statutes in some contexts)
Adams-Tutein, 47 V.I. 514 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2005) (section 834 crime involves ‘knowing’ and ‘designedly’)
DeSilvia v. People, 55 V.I. 859 (V.I. 2011) (recognizes knowingly false representation scienter for § 843(3))
Mendoza v. People, 55 V.I. 660 (V.I. 2011) (confirms knowingly making false statements under § 843(3))
Nanton v. People, 52 V.I. 466 (V.I. 2009) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved claims)
Stadtmauer v. United States, 620 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct requires proof of perjury, knowledge, and effect)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (conspiracy variance limitations for encoded schemes)
Curran v. United States, 20 F.3d 560 (3d Cir. 1994) (federal misrepresentation statute not controlling for VI § 843(3))
Williams v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 424 F.2d 526 (3d Cir. 1970) (lacks federal mens rea import to VI statute; larceny context)