## Facts

- Douglas Lare, an adult with significant developmental disabilities and severe anxiety, lived independently but had major limits in reading, writing, and financial management.
- Lare became involved with Alesha Lair; she and family members later lived in his apartment and opened credit accounts in his name and depleted his funds.
- After Lair moved out, Lare found Timothy Dye in his home at night; the next day Lare discovered multiple household items missing.
- Lare experienced significant fear and anxiety after the incident and increased home security measures.
- The State charged Dye with residential burglary and alleged an aggravating factor that Lare was a particularly vulnerable victim.
- Before trial, the prosecution sought permission for Lare to testify accompanied by “Ellie,” a trained facility dog provided through the prosecutor’s office.
- After a hearing, the trial court found Lare was developmentally disabled and traumatized, determined the dog would not distract the proceedings, and allowed Ellie to sit at Lare’s feet out of the jury’s sight during testimony.
- The jury convicted Dye of residential burglary but rejected the vulnerable-victim aggravator.

## Issues

1. Whether allowing an adult witness to testify accompanied by a trained facility dog, supplied through the prosecutor’s office, violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the dog based on the witness’s disabilities and anxiety and the risk of juror prejudice.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Lare to testify with the facility dog.
- The court held Dye did not show that the dog’s presence denied him a fair trial.
- The court relied on the trial court’s individualized findings of Lare’s developmental disabilities and severe anxiety, steps taken to reduce juror impact (including positioning the dog out of view), and a limiting instruction directing jurors not to draw inferences for or against either party from the dog’s presence.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion to manage courtroom procedures and the manner of presenting testimony, subject to the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
- A witness-support measure that could affect juror perception is reviewed for abuse of discretion and requires a showing of actual, not speculative, unfair prejudice.
- Permitting a trained facility/comfort dog to accompany a witness may be proper where the court makes case-specific findings that the measure is needed to facilitate adequate testimony.
- Potential prejudice should be reduced through reasonable safeguards, including courtroom placement to limit visibility and a clear limiting instruction.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the use of a trained facility dog as a courtroom accommodation for an adult witness with serious developmental disabilities and anxiety because the trial judge made individualized findings of need and implemented measures to minimize prejudice, and the defendant did not establish an unfair-trial violation.


State v. Dye, 178 Wn. 2d 541 (Wash. 2013)