Opinion ID: 1042140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Untenable reasons

Text: A trial court's decision is made for untenable reasons if it is based on an incorrect standard or the facts do not meet the requirements of the correct standard. Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d at 47. Under the standard discussed above, the 13 No. 87929-0 trial court's implicit finding of necessity was sufficient. Dye, 170 Wn. App. at 348. The trial court was made aware of Lare's significant anxiety regarding his upcoming testimony, as well as his fear of Dye. CP at 104. The trial court expressly relied on Lare's significant emotional trauma and developmental disability, RP (Nov. 18, 201 0) at 29, when it allowed Ellie to accompany Lare on the witness stand. The trial court clearly understood that Ellie was needed in order to facilitate Lare's testimony, in light of his mental state. The trial court did everything but explicitly state on the record that Lare would not testify but for Ellie's presence, and the failure to do so does not constitute error. Our precedent does not call for magic words, but for 'a hearing with a record evidencing the reasons for the action taken .... ' Hartzog, 96 Wn.2d at 401 (quoting State v. Hartzog, 26 Wn. App. 576, 588-89, 615 P.2d 480 (1980) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because the trial court held a hearing on the permissibility of Ellie's presence, and because the record showed why Ellie's presence was needed to facilitate Lare's testimony, the trial court did not rely on untenable reasons.