SPOKANE - Evan D. Savoie's 2006 conviction for killing 13-year-old Craig Sorger was reversed on appeal.

The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division Three, found Grant County Superior Court violated the his right as a minor to a public trial when the judge decided to close a hearing.

Grant County Prosecutor Angus Lee is considering retrying the case.

"We've reviewed the opinion from the court of appeals and we are looking to see whether there is a chance to appeal at the state Supreme Court ... if not, we will talk to the family and have to decide on whether we will retry the case," said Lee.

Lee did not take part in the original trials of Savoie or Jake Eakin.

Savoie and Eakin were 12 years old when they beat and stabbed Sorger to death. Savoie was accused of dropping a rock on the victim's head and pressuring Eakin to take part, according to court records.

The day of the murder, Savoie and Eakin were dropped off at Oasis Park in Ephrata. They went to Sorger's house and invited him to play, according to court records.

Sorger's mother became concerned when the boy didn't return.

His body was found in Oasis Park.

"Mr. Savoie told police the three boys had played football and tackle tag, and Mr. Sorger hit his head when tackled and then left to go home," according to the opinion. "Mr. Savoie's and Mr. Eakin's statements began to multiply and diverge, becoming convoluted and incriminating. The autopsy revealed Mr. Sorger died from homicidal violence. The state charged Mr. Savoie and Mr. Eakin with first degree murder."

Eakin pleaded guilty to second degree murder in April 2005 and was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Savoie was convicted of murder in the first degree by a jury and sentenced to more than 26 years in prison.

The appellate court case starts with the release of the Sorger family's mental health and Child Protective Services records to Savoie's attorneys. In trying to defend their client, the attorneys requested the records and the state Department of Social and Health Services objected. After a review by the judge allowing some of the records to be released, the prosecutor's office mistakenly provided the attorneys with all of the records, according to the opinion.

The release led prosecutors to ask the judge to appoint an attorney to protect the Sorger family's rights, according to the opinion.

"Nothing indicates defense counsel's presence, although blank signature lines are on the document. Attorney Garth Dano was appointed," according to the opinion. "The trial court indicated Mr. Dano would not be heard in the criminal matter; he would have to institute a separate proceeding. But Mr. Dano did appear in the criminal case multiple times attempting to stop further distribution of the family records and seeking return of the records."

At one hearing, Dano asked to close the courtroom to the public, against Savoie's objection, according to the opinion. The court agreed, permitting the victim's mother to remain. Following the closure, Dano successfully convinced the court to "prevent further distribution of the records and to seal portions of the court file."

The courtroom's closure led to the appellate court's decision. Judge Stephen Brown wrote the court did not follow the proper procedure to close the courtroom.

Prosecutors argued the closure was wrong, but it didn't warrant reversing the conviction, arguing it was a separate action from the criminal case, according to the opinion. The appeals court judges disagreed, stating the hearing was part of the criminal case.

"The trial court appointed counsel for the Sorgers to 'protect their rights in this action,'" according to the opinion. "Every time counsel appeared on behalf of the Sorgers, it was in a hearing scheduled under the criminal case title and cause number. Documents filed on behalf of the Sorgers were filed in the criminal case. The closed hearing pertained to the criminal prosecution and involved the use of the records by the defense, the defense's trial strategy, the defense's witnesses, and the timing of the Sorgers' testimony."

The courtroom could have been closed to protect Savoie's right to a fair trial, but the appellate court ruled the decision didn't, according to the opinion.

"The closure was intended to protect the Sorgers' interest, not Mr. Savoie's interests, and he strenuously objected," according to the opinion. "Accordingly, the closure violated Mr. Savoie's right to a public trial."

The Columbia Basin Herald was unable to reach Garth Dano for comment.