State v. Dye
283 P.3d 1130
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Lare is an adult with significant developmental disabilities living independently; he functions at a child-like level.
- Alesha Lair exploited Lare financially, using his money and credit to purchase items and incur debt.
- Dye, Alesha's other boyfriend, moved in and rented an apartment with Alesha, funded by Lare’s money.
- Dye was caught rummaging through Lare’s home and later there was a large burglary at Lare’s apartment.
- The State sought to have Ellie, a prosecutor’s facility dog, accompany Lare during testimony; the court allowed it and instructed the jury to disregard the dog.
- Dye was convicted of residential burglary, but the jury did not find the vulnerable victim aggravator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of the facility dog on fair trial | Dye argues the dog violated confrontation and prejudice standards. | State asserts permissible court discretion and safeguards; Goddard/Hakimi rationale applies. | No reversible error; dog unobtrusive and did not prejudice trial. |
| Cross-examination impact from dog's presence | Dog undermines confrontation and suggests victimhood via animal signals. | Defense had extensive cross-examination; dog does not alter confrontation analysis. | Coy distinctions do not apply; no due process violation found. |
| Bias or suggestibility due to prosecutor's ownership of dog | Presence could bias jury in favor of the victim. | No evidence of misconduct or cross-examination restriction; Aponte inapplicable. | No due process impairment; Aponte inapplicable. |
| Whether trial court failed to make explicit findings balancing emotional need vs. prejudice | Court should have explicit findings under due process and GR 33/ADA. | Implicit balancing occurred; Lare’s disability and need justified presence. | No error; balancing implicit and no prejudice to Dye. |
| Alternate juror seating and impartiality before deliberations | Court should verify impartiality of alternate on record before seating. | Chirinos permits discretion to replace with alternates without pre-deliberation hearing. | Discretionary replacement proper; no indication of bias. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (confrontation right not absolute; need for individual findings in some cases)
- Aponte, 249 Conn. 735 (Conn. 1999) (misconduct when child witness held object; bias/suggestibility explored on cross-exam)
- Chirinos, 161 Wn. App. 844 (Wash. App. 2011) (alternate-juror replacement discretion without pre-deliberation hearing)
- Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918 (Wash. 2007) (guides replacement of jurors/impacted impartiality considerations)
- Ballew, 167 Wn. App. 359 (Wash. App. 2012) (balancing standard for potential prejudice against need for evidence-adjacent items)
- Hakimi, 124 Wn. App. 21 (Wash. App. 2004) (allowing vulnerable witnesses to hold comforting objects considered against prejudice)