Gumbs v. People, 59 V.I. 784

Gumbs operated the John Gumbs Insurance Agency as its sole licensed agent and allegedly took premiums without transmitting them to insurers.
An examination prompted by complaints revealed a pattern of alleged insurance fraud and substantial unremitted premium monies (e.g., over $88,000) from multiple clients between 2003 and 2005.
During trial, the People proved Gumbs collected premiums from various ministries and individuals but did not forward them to Guardian Insurance or other insurers, leading to uninsured clients.
After selling the agency in late 2005, Gumbs allegedly continued soliciting and collecting premiums, including from Victorine, which were not transmitted or renewed as required.
Jury found Gumbs guilty on two CICO counts and a separate count for obtaining money by false pretenses; sentences were imposed with a joint ten-year term and restitution.
On appeal, Gumbs challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the verdict forms under §3636, jury instructions, and the presence of a biased juror; the court affirms in part and reverses in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence of a pattern of criminal activity under CICO?	Gumbs alleges no two-crime pattern meeting §604(j) that includes a felony.	People presented embezzlement/false pretenses as predicate offenses with substantial sums.	Yes; evidence showed multiple nontrivial misappropriations exceeding $100, establishing a pattern including a felony.
Did the People prove two or more criminal activities for Count I (CICO)?	Two or more related crimes are required for a pattern under CICO.	Evidence supports multiple occasions of conduct linking to the enterprise.	Yes; ample evidence supported two or more qualifying occasions constituting a pattern.
Was the final Count I jury instruction adequate to convey the elements of CICO?	Instruction sufficiently reflected the CICO elements.	Instruction failed to enumerate the predicate elements of embezzlement/false pretenses.	Yes; the charge, read as a whole, properly stated the law and elements.
Did the juror with ties to a prosecution witness prejudice the defendant?	Presence of biased juror violated fair trial rights.	Juror remained on panel; bias could have tainted deliberations.	No; juror was removed before deliberations, and no prejudice occurred.

Jackson-Flavius v. People, 57 V.I. 716 (V.I. 2012) (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims; final judgment review)
United States v. Carr, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (predicate offenses under RICO-like statutes may be charged descriptively)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (underlying felonies may support a conviction even if predicate felonies are not separately proved)
Saybolt, 577 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2009) (information sufficiency and evidentiary standards on predicate offenses)
Miller, 527 F.3d 54 (3d Cir. 2008) (standard for sufficiency and jury instruction review)
Nanton v. People, 52 V.I. 466 (V.I. 2009) (jury instruction adequacy and plain error framework in Virgin Islands appellate review)