Mendoza v. People, 2011 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 26

Mendoza, a safari taxi operator, sold license plates and medallion 0285 and deposited them with the Virgin Islands Taxicab Commission in December 2008.
He presented a lease for medallion 0456 and later sought a 2009 business license for that medallion, but outstanding fees blocked issuance.
Wheatley, the Commission director, and Mendoza discussed documents showing false vehicle inspection and registration information linked to plate 0285.
Wheatley and Officer Estrill observed Mendoza’s safari at his residence; the vehicle appeared inoperable and without license plates.
Documents indicating that a BMV inspector (DeSilvia) had certified the 0285 vehicle were later shown to be falsified; DeSilvia admitted he had not conducted the inspection.
Mendoza and DeSilvia were charged with procuring false instruments (14 V.I.C. § 795) and making fraudulent claims upon the government (14 V.I.C. § 843(3)); a jury convicted both on all counts; Mendoza's 795 conviction was sustained, but 843(3) was reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is § 795 unconstitutionally vague as applied?	Mendoza argues Skilling v. United States renders § 795 vague.	People contend § 795 clearly defines prohibited conduct and is not vague.	§ 795 is not unconstitutionally vague.
Do vehicle registration and inspection lane checklist constitute instruments under § 795?	Mendoza asserts these documents are not instruments because 'instrument' means an agreement.	People rely on broader def. of instrument to include any document filed or recorded that affects public records.	The documents are instruments under § 795; they could be filed and thus qualify.
Was there sufficient evidence Mendoza knowingly procured false instruments under § 795?	Mendoza argues lack of a valid instrument and lack of actual filing negate guilt.	People presented evidence showing Mendoza possessed falsified documents and intended to file them.	Yes; sufficient evidence supported § 795 conviction.
Did the People prove Mendoza made false statements under § 843(3)?	Statements were attributed to DeSilvia; Mendoza did not know what DeSilvia did.	Evidence shows Mendoza possessed falsified instruments and acted in concert with DeSilvia; filing at BMV could occur.	No; insufficient evidence that Mendoza made a false or fraudulent statement; § 843(3) conviction reversed.

Skilling v. United States, 562 U.S. 376 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2010) (vagueness analysis; honest services clause discussion)
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (requirement that statutes define offenses with definite standards)
Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Steven, 134 F.3d 526 (3d Cir. 1998) (interpretation of vagueness and statutory language)
Miller v. People, 54 V.I. 398 (V.I. 2010) (distinguishes falsification of public records from false statements to government)
State v. Price, 94 Wn.2d 810 (Wash. 1980) (broad concept of an instrument includes statutorily required filings)