People of Guam v Jones II [2006] GUSC 13; 2006 Guam 13 (17 October 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM,
Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

EDWARD BOHNAM STOVER JONES II,
Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Filed: October 17, 2006
Cite as: 2006 Guam 13

Supreme Court Case No.: CRA04-005
Superior Court Case No.: CF0372-03

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on March 3, 2006
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Howard Trapp, Esq. Howard Trapp Inc. 200 Saylor Bldg. 139 Chalan Santo Papa Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: Marianne Woloschuck, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General General Crimes Div. 287 W. O’Brien D. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice.

TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Edward Bonham Stover Jones II appeals from his conviction on the charges of Money Laundering and Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE). Jones argues on appeal that both charges must be dismissed because the indictment failed to allege essential elements of the offenses. Furthermore, Jones contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on essential elements of both charges.

[2] We find that the indictment for the Money Laundering charge and the CCE charge contained the essential elements of the respective offenses and therefore the indictment was sufficient as to both charges. In addition, we hold that the jury instructions for the Money Laundering charge do not amount to plain error and therefore affirm the defendant’s conviction on that charge. The jury instructions for the CCE charge, however, were plainly erroneous and had a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the case. Reversal of the defendant’s conviction on that charge is warranted. We therefore remand for further proceedings.

I.

[3]