State v. Dye, 309 P.3d 1192

Victim Douglas Lare is developmentally disabled (IQ ~65; mental age ~6–12) and experienced severe anxiety after burglaries by defendant Timothy Dye.
The prosecutor’s office uses a trained facility dog (Ellie) to comfort vulnerable witnesses; Ellie accompanied Lare during his pretrial interview and the prosecutor moved to allow the dog to sit with Lare while testifying.
The trial court held a pretrial hearing, found Lare’s disability and emotional trauma supported the accommodation, and allowed Ellie to accompany Lare on the stand; a limiting instruction told the jury not to draw conclusions from the dog’s presence.
During testimony Ellie remained unobtrusive; defense cross-examined extensively and the jury convicted Dye of residential burglary (but did not find the vulnerable-victim aggravator).
The Court of Appeals affirmed; Dye appealed claiming the dog’s presence violated his right to a fair trial and confrontation.
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard and holding the trial court did not err in permitting the facility dog given the record showing need and absence of demonstrated prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dye)	Held
Whether a trial court may allow a witness to be accompanied by a facility/comfort dog while testifying	State: Trial court has discretion to permit a support animal when needed to facilitate testimony of a vulnerable witness	Dye: Dog’s presence inflames jury, bolsters witness credibility, and infringes fair trial/confrontation rights	Court: Yes — trial court has broad discretion; allowed here based on record showing need
Burden and standard for permitting special accommodations that implicate confrontation/fair trial rights	State: Abuse-of-discretion review; record-based, trial court need not use ‘‘magic words’’ of necessity	Dye: Special measures that affect confrontation/fair trial require prosecution to prove necessity and show no prejudice	Court: Prosecution must show need on the record, but not a heightened ‘‘compelling necessity’’ standard; deference to trial court unless decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds/reasons

Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (closed-circuit testimony requires case-specific finding of necessity to protect confrontation rights)
State v. Foster, 135 Wn.2d 441 (1998) (adopting Craig’s requirement for case-specific necessity findings in WA)
State v. Hakimi, 124 Wn. App. 15 (2004) (trial court may allow child witness to hold a doll; balancing comfort against prejudice)
People v. Spence, 212 Cal. App. 4th 478 (2012) (therapy dog allowed with child sexual-assault victim; appellate deference to trial court’s findings)
Littlefield (In re Marriage of Littlefield), 133 Wn.2d 39 (1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard: reverse only if decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds/reasons)
State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792 (1999) (procedural courtroom measures implicating rights reviewed for abuse of discretion)