State v. Liliopoulos

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HOLCOMB, J.
• Citation: State v. Liliopoulos, 167 Wash. 686, 10 P.2d 564 (Wash. 1932)
• Decision Date: 15 April 1932
• Docket Number: 23388.
• Parties: STATE v. LILIOPOULOS.

10 P.2d 564

167 Wash. 686

STATE v. LILIOPOULOS.

No. 23388.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 15, 1932

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. W. Hawkins, Judge.

C. D Liliopoulos was convicted of larceny by embezzlement, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

See also, 5 P.2d 319.

C. D Liliopoulos, of Seattle, for appellant.

Robert M. Burgunder, Emmett G. Lenihan, and Arthur E. Bailey, Jr. all of Seattle, for the State.

HOLCOMB J.

In the court below appellant was charged by an information filed on January 31, 1931, with the crime of larceny by embezzlement, stated substantially as follows: That on or about February 1, 1928, and on divers days and dates thereafter, thence continuously to and including January 30, 1931, appellant, being then and there the agent, trustee, bailee, and administrator of the estate of George Chounos and Helen Chounos, did then and there have intrusted to him, and have in his possession, custody, and control as such agent, trustee, bailee, and administrator, the sum of $5,134.74, of the value of $5,134.74, in lawful money of the United States, the property of Demetrios Chounos, Vassilias M. Chounos, and Euthymia Papacosta, and appellant willfully, unlawfully, fraudulently, and feloniously did then and there secrete, withhold, and appropriate the same to his own use, with intent to defraud the above-named persons, and each of them, thereof.

Appellant pleaded not guilty to the information, and, after a trial lasting five days, was found guilty as charged by the jury, whereupon the trial court sentenced him for an indeterminate term of not less than one year nor more than fifteen years imprisonment, which sentence was, by the trial court of its motion, and without any request therefor on the part of appellant, suspended pending further order of the court.

On appeal under assignments of three errors appellant urges two propositions: First, that there was no criminal intent on his part shown; second, that, under the proofs, any liability for funds misappropriated by him as charged in the information was barred by the statute of limitations.

The testimony and exhibits in the record are very voluminous, and only a bare outline of the evidence can be or need be given.

Appellant is an attorney at law in Seattle, and was for a number of years an unsalaried consul of Greece. As such consul he had the right, where there were no citizen heirs qualified to become administrators of the estate of deceased Greek citizens, to be appointed administrator of such estates. George Chounos, an American soldier of Greek descent, died while in the service of the United States in France in 1917. He left surviving him as heirs his mother and three brothers, all residing in Greece, and a sister residing in Albania. There being no immediate heirs in the United States qualified to act as administrator of the estate, appellant was appointed by the superior court for King county, in probate, to be administrator thereof. As such administrator appellant came into possession and custody of $7,426, the proceeds of the United States war risk insurance policy of the decedent, which was the sole asset of the estate. Before this estate was closed the mother of decedent died, and her estate and the estate of George Chounos were thereafter joined. On March 21, 1929, appellant filed his final report and petition for distribution, in which he reported under oath that he had then in his possession as administrator the sum of $6,877 for distribution to the heirs of George Chounos, deceased. He petitioned in the same report for an order authorizing him to distribute the balance of the estate then on hand to the three remaining heirs, one of the heirs being then in Seattle whom he alleged to have already received his share, except the sum of $400 reserved, and the payment of the rest of the shares to the other sons and daughters was suspended until the conclusion of the administration of the estate of Helen Chounos. On May 21, 1929, appellant procured an order prepared by himself settling the final account and directing the distribution of the estate. It was therein provided that he should deliver the remaining three undivided shares and the balance of the $400 reserve held by him. He was ordered to file receipts from the heirs within ninety days thereafter. He failed to file receipts from the heirs within the ninety days, and suit was begun against him and his surety in August, 1929. His surety paid the shares to the Greek heirs, and that suit was dismissed. Appellant made partial restitution by giving the surety company his promissory note and an equity in certain real property owned by him.

For some time prior to 1931 appellant had an apparently honest controversy with the Greek government concerning certain accounts he claimed due him from that government for services and expenses rendered as an attorney at law respecting workmen's compensation laws in this and other states and his efforts to secure changes in the Greek laws which would benefit Greek citizens, or heirs, by reciprocal provisions here and in other states. Although appellant was permitted by the trial court to testify at large and introduce much correspondence concerning this official negotiation, the net result of it was that his superiors, both in Greece and in Washington, D. C., decided against his claims and denied them. Considerable oral testimony and also several translated lengthy letters are in the record to that effect which are not necessary to set forth. They were all Before the jury, as were all the probate records and appellant's denials and explanations of the charge against him.

Appellant raises no question as to the improper admission or exclusion of any evidence, nor does he question the validity of any instruction given...