top of page

State v. Dye (2013)

By Matthew Chin




Overview


During a case dealing with the robbery of a man with several developmental disabilities, Plaintiff Douglas Lare was given Ellie, a facility dog who comforted his anxiety and was granted the presence of Ellie during his testimony at the trial. The Defendant’s counsel objected to the motion, arguing that Ellie’s presence possibly swayed the jury and therefore violated Timothy Dye’s right to due process and a fair trial.


Summary


Douglas Lare is a 56-year-old adult who has several major developmental disabilities, including cerebral palsy, Kallman Syndrome, and mild intellectual disability. Despite his age, he has an IQ of 65 and functions at a mental age of 6 to 12, which makes it hard for him to complete daily activities, read, write, and handle his finances. After becoming romantically involved with his neighbor, Alesha Lair, who was dating the defendant Timothy Dye at the time, she had opened and maxed out several credit cards under Lare’s name and withdrew money from his retirement fund. Alesha borrowed a grand total of $42,000 from the credit cards under Lare’s name and withdrew $59,000 from his retirement fund. Dye also took part in robbing Lare. On January 24, Lare woke up to find Dye rifling through his belongings, even asking Lare if he could take the DVD player and VCR, which Lare refused. The next day, Lare came back from work to find his door propped open with his DVD and VCR player, microwave and a collectible knife gone. Since the incident, Lare feared it would happen again and installed three locks on the door and slept with mace, a frying pan, and two knives. Dye admits that he pawned off the DVD player, but argues that Lare offered it to him voluntarily. When the detective ended the interview recording, Dye stated that they couldn’t pin the crime on him because his name wasn't on any of the pawn slips.

During Lare’s defense interview, the King County Prosecuting Attorney brought his golden retriever, Ellie, who lives with and is trained by the prosecutor to comfort children as they give their testimonies. The motion was granted by the trial court against the complaints by Dye’s counsel. The jury convicted Dye of residential burglary, however, they also did not find that Lare was a vulnerable victim, decreasing the severity of punishment on Dye for the burglary. Following the decision, Dye and his counsel appealed the decision, arguing that Ellie’s presence with Lare during his testimony violated Dye’s right to a fair trial. 

This appeal made its way to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, where it applied a Standard of Review to examine if the trial court’s decision was made within legal bounds. In other words, the Supreme Court would respect the trial court's decision, so long as there is no evidence that the decision was “manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons” [1]. If there is any evidence of this, the Supreme Court has the power to reverse the trial court’s decision or send the case back to the trial court for a retrial. 


  • Applicable Legal Standard

When looking for previous cases that surround the issue of having an emotional support animal present when a witness is giving their testimony, the court looked at precedents from two previous cases, People v. Tohom (2013) and People v. Spence (2012), where both cases involved a young girl testifying against their father for rape. In both cases, a therapy dog was permitted to be present with the witness to prevent “emotional meltdowns and refus[al] to testify”[1]. However, the court does recognize that these support animals or toys may elicit emotional sympathy from the jurors, which several states have accounted for with their versions of laws that require evidence that the emotional support animal or toy is necessary. 

  • Untenable grounds

The motion for Ellie to remain present during the plaintiff’s testimony was approved by the trial court, as they claimed that Ellie would not disrupt the trial in any way and would simply sit next to the individual. Based on the records, Ellie remained at Lare’s side without disrupting the proceedings or making any gestures towards Dye that would influence the jurors' decision on Dye’s crimes. The court's claim was upheld by the records of the case proceedings, and therefore did not rely on untenable grounds.

  • Untenable reasons

Here, the court was looking to determine whether the trial court’s decision was based on incorrect standards or whether the facts did not meet the requirements of the correct standard [1]. The trial court held a hearing regarding Ellie's presence during the victim’s testimony, citing that Lare’s fear of Dye and significant anxiety about giving his testimony were sufficient and sound reasons to allow Ellie’s presence. The Supreme Court found no untenable reasons in the trial court's decision on the matter.

  • Manifestly Unreasonable

Lastly, the Supreme Court must determine if the trial court’s decision was a manifestly unreasonable one. In other words, one that is “outside the range of acceptable choices, given the facts and the applicable legal standard…”[1]. Based on the records, there were no recorded instances where Ellie disrupted the proceedings of the trial or interfered with the counsel’s cross-examination of Lare and his testimony. Had Ellie jumped on the individual's lap or made any gesture towards Dye, it would have been recorded and the court would have removed Ellie, but this is not a matter of what could have happened. As for the subconscious bias caused by Ellie’s presence, the jury was cautioned ahead of time not to let Ellie’s presence with the individual sway their decision on the matter. Given the jury's constitutional role, unless there is clear evidence on the record that Ellie’s presence swayed their opinion, the court cannot question their decision. Ultimately, the court finds that the trial court did not act in a manifestly unreasonable manner.


In their final decision, the evidence failed to establish that Dye’s fair trial rights were violated. With precedent from previous court cases that allowed children to have special procedural accommodations during the trial, the Supreme Court respected the trial court's decision to have Ellie at Lare’s side during his testimony. They recognize that Ellie may have elicited some sympathy for the victim, but the trial court's approach to that possibility was appropriate.


Impact


The importance of this case is that it allows people with intellectual disabilities to receive the necessary accommodations when testifying. As seen in this case, Lare’s perspective in the matter was crucial as he was the one who had been taken advantage of and experienced trauma from the event. Had the court not allowed Ellie to be present when Lare was giving this testimony, the outcome of this case may have been different. The purpose of any case is to have all sides of the story presented with the relevant evidence, which includes all witnesses. As previous cases have shown, especially with more vulnerable witnesses, special accommodations were required to allow them to share their stories. This case helps expand those special accommodations to those with intellectual disabilities, as their story matters and therefore is necessary for the jury to hear.


Court Documents


 
 
Donate
bottom of page