State v. Comenout, 267 P.3d 355

In July 2008, WA LCB agents seized 37,000 unstamped cigarettes from the Indian Country Store in Puyallup, alleging $750,000 in unpaid taxes.
The store was owned by Edward Comenout (Quinault), run daily by his brothers Robert Sr. (Tulalip) and Robert Jr. (Yakama), and located on two trust allotments outside any reservation boundary.
The State charged the three Comenouts with unlicensed cigarette sales, unlawful possession/transport of unstamped cigarettes, and first-degree theft.
Edward moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; motions were denied; the case proceeded through appellate steps, and Edward died before final resolution.
A 2005 cigarette tax compact between the Quinault Nation and Washington required licensure for tribal retailers, but the Indian Country Store was not licensed by the tribe.
RCW 37.12.010 grants Washington criminal jurisdiction over all Indian country outside established reservations; Cooper (1996) upheld jurisdiction over allotment land outside reservations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Washington have criminal jurisdiction over tribal members selling unstamped cigarettes on trust allotment land outside reservations?	State relies on RCW 37.12.010 and Cooper to assert full nonconsensual jurisdiction over Indian country outside reservations.	Comenouts argue retrocession limited state jurisdiction and rely on Sohappy to narrow reservation-related reach.	Yes; State has jurisdiction; charges may proceed.
Are the Comenouts exempt from Washington cigarette tax as Indian retailers under the quinoa compact framework?	Compact defines tribal retailers with licensure; store not licensed by a tribe, so no exemption by contract.	Argues Indian retailer status could exempt under RCW 82.24.295(1) during contract period.	No exemption; contract terms require tribal licensure, and the store does not qualify as tribal retailer.
Does the cigarette tax contract take precedence over RCW 82.24 during its term to govern the tax applicability?	Contract governs terms during its effective period, superseding conflicting provisions.	Contract limitations/definitions control, not broader statutory definitions when in effect.	Contract takes precedence; but it does not exempt the Comenouts due to licensure definitions.

State v. Cooper, 130 Wn.2d 770 (1996) (upheld jurisdiction over allotment lands outside reservation under RCW 37.12.010)
State v. Sohappy, 110 Wn.2d 907 (1988) (limited interpretation of reservation boundaries for certain sites)
State v. Pink, 144 Wn. App. 945 (2008) (distinguishable as activity occurred within reservation boundaries)