Legal Opinion
State v. Dye
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided August 27, 2012No. 66549-9-IPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEllington, J.
¶1 Timothy Dye’s right to a fair trial was not violated when the court allowed Ellie, the King County Prosecutor’s Office “facility dog,” to sit next to the developmentally disabled adult victim as he testified. Nor did the court improperly seat an alternate juror without first verifying the alternate’s impartiality. We find no error and affirm Dye’s conviction for residential burglary.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Douglas Lare is an adult man with significant developmental disabilities.1 Although he lives independently and has a job, he functions at the level of a child.
¶3 In 2006 or 2007, Lare met Alesha…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pennsylvania v. RitchieSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Coy v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- State v. KirkmanWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. KirkmanWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. AponteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. DyeWashington Supreme Court · 2013
- People v. TohomAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. SpenceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- People v. TohomAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- State Of Washington v. L.l.b.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2020
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.