Charles T. Wright

This case is an attorney disciplinary proceeding against Stanley B. Allper, referred to the Washington Supreme Court after the Disciplinary Board recommended disbarment for mishandling client funds and related violations. The court ordered Allper disbarred, finding that he failed to retain $2,520 in escrow in his trust account as required, allowed the trust account balance to drop below the needed amount with multiple NSF checks, and closed the account without paying the clients. The decision rested on violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (DR 9-102 on trust funds and DR 1-102 on unfitness to practice), combined with Allper's prior disciplinary record of censures and reprimands for neglect and conflicts, his failure to cooperate or appear at hearings, and distinctions from a prior case involving lesser sanctions.

procedure

This case is an appeal from a first-degree murder conviction in Washington, centered on whether testimony about a key prosecution witness (initially the prime suspect) taking two polygraph examinations was improperly admitted at trial. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the testimony violated the rule barring polygraph evidence absent stipulation because it created a strong inference that the witness had passed the tests and was therefore truthful. The court reasoned that the defense's cross-examination questioning the adequacy of the police investigation did not open the door to this evidence, that the implication was manifestly prejudicial to the defendant, and that the error was compounded by the prosecution's reference to the tests in closing argument.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether an assignee of a vendor's right to receive payments under an executory real estate sales contract obtains priority over later lien creditors, including a bankruptcy trustee, when the assignment is recorded in county real property records but not filed as a financing statement under the Uniform Commercial Code. The Washington Supreme Court held that the vendor's right to contract payments is personal property and that an assignment of that right for security purposes constitutes a secured transaction governed by UCC Article 9. Because the assignments at issue were not perfected by filing under the UCC, the assignees lacked priority and the bankruptcy trustees could collect the payments as general creditors. The court reached this conclusion by relying on prior Washington precedent characterizing vendors' interests in real estate contracts as personalty and by rejecting arguments that the transactions fell within UCC exclusions for real property interests.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved appeals by Johnie Scott, Roger Benson, and Kevin Sample from their first-degree robbery convictions arising from an armed robbery of The Office Tavern in Tacoma on March 25, 1977, during which police stopped a matching vehicle based on a prior similar robbery and arrested the defendants shortly after the crime. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause given the vehicle description, its prior use in a similar robbery, and the officers' reasonable actions in setting up checkpoints. Challenges to the lineup procedures, habitual criminal proceedings, and related jury instructions were rejected as meritless, with the sole modification being deletion of the armed enhancement from the sentences of Benson and Sample.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned challenges by neighboring landowners to Kitsap County's rezoning of a 38-acre tract and the City of Bremerton's preannexation comprehensive plan adoption and zoning of a larger area, both intended to permit construction of a regional shopping center. The court held that county zoning ordinances need not strictly conform to comprehensive plans under the Planning Enabling Act, as such plans serve as guides rather than binding requirements. It reversed the county's rezone after finding the environmental impact statement inadequate for lacking sufficient analysis of alternative sites and socio-economic effects on the downtown area, but affirmed the city's actions on the ground that its EIS was adequate under the rule of reason.

business & regulatoryenvironmentproperty

The case concerned whether the City of Tacoma could impose its business and occupation tax on the Hyster Company for sales and service activities involving Tacoma customers. Hyster had no office in Tacoma but maintained telephone listings, advertised locally, and assigned employees who spent substantial time there on sales calls, customer solicitations, and on-site repairs, with all contracts ultimately approved in Seattle. The trial court ruled that Hyster's activities did not create sufficient nexus for Tacoma to tax the company. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that the employees' ongoing sales-supporting and service activities within the city provided the required nexus under due process, allowing taxation measured by gross receipts from Tacoma customers. The court relied on precedents establishing that a reasonable relationship between the taxed activities and local benefits satisfies constitutional requirements for jurisdiction to tax.

taxesbusiness & regulatory