State Of Washington v. Robert R. Comenout, Jr.
48990-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2017Background
- The Indian Country Store in Puyallup is located on trust allotment land (Indian country) but outside any Indian reservation; it was owned/operated by members of the Comenout family (all enrolled tribal members).
- In May 2015 police executed a warrant at the store and seized thousands of unstamped cigarettes; four Comenouts were arrested and charged with multiple cigarette-tax–related offenses and conspiracy.
- Each defendant entered an Alford plea under plea agreements; convictions followed under Washington cigarette tax and contraband statutes (various RCW provisions).
- Defendants appealed, arguing (among other things) that the State lacked criminal jurisdiction over Indians on trust allotments outside reservations, that a relevant statute violated equal protection, and that informations were insufficient.
- The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals and reviewed (1) jurisdictional claims (which survive guilty pleas), (2) the statutory equal protection challenge (validity of a statute), and declined several other claims as waived by the pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| State criminal jurisdiction over Indians on trust allotments | State: has jurisdiction over crimes in state | Comenouts: trust allotment is Indian country and outside reservations, so State lacks jurisdiction | Court: State has jurisdiction for crimes on trust allotments located outside reservations; controlled by State v. Comenout and related precedent |
| Validity / equal protection (RCW 82.24.250) | State: statute valid; differential treatment of federal agencies is permitted | Comenouts: statute treats Indian transporters differently from federal agencies, violating equal protection | Court: statute does not violate equal protection because federal instrumentalities can be exempt and that is constitutionally required |
| Sufficiency of the informations | State: informations adequate | Comenouts: reply brief asserts informations misstated elements (raised late, without assignment of error) | Court: declined to consider insufficiency claim for lack of meaningful argument/assignment of error |
| Other claims (search warrants, selective prosecution, tax preemption/merits) | State: claims are waived by guilty pleas | Comenouts: various challenges to warrants, selective prosecution, tax preemption, and legal obligations to collect tax | Court: these non-jurisdictional claims were waived by Alford pleas and not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Comenout, 173 Wn.2d 235 (2011) (held State has criminal jurisdiction over crimes on off‑reservation trust allotments)
- State v. Cooper, 130 Wn.2d 770 (1996) (Washington assumed jurisdiction over Indian country outside reservations)
- State v. Clark, 178 Wn.2d 19 (2013) (reaffirmed State jurisdiction over crimes on allotments outside reservations)
- Matheson v. Liquor Control Bd., 132 Wn. App. 280 (2006) (addressed equal protection challenge to state cigarette tax scheme)
- Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville, 447 U.S. 134 (1980) (federal‑instrumentality tax immunity principle relevant to differential treatment)
- United States v. Baker, 63 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1995) (rejected an equal protection argument analogous to Matheson)