Utah R. Evid. 201

History

2011 Advisory Committee Note. The language of this rule has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make class and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility. This rule is the federal rule, verbatim. Original Advisory Committee Note. This rule is the federal rule, verbatim, and consolidates the law of judicial notice formerly contained in Rules 9 through 12, Utah Rules of Evidence (1971) and in Utah Code § 78-25-1 (1953) into one broadly defined rule. The Utah Supreme Court has stated the rule with reference to judicial notice in Little Cottonwood Water Co. v. Kimball, 76 Utah 243, 267, 289 Pac. 116 (1930) where the court stated: "In short, a court is presumed to know what every man of ordinary intelligence must know about such things." See also DeFusion Co. v. Utah Liquor Control Comm'n, 613 P.2d 1120 (Utah 1980). Subdivision (a) "governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts," and does not deal with instances in which a court may notice legislative facts, which is left to the sound discretion of trial and appellate courts. Compare Rule 12, Utah Rules of Evidence (1971). Since legislative facts are matters that go to the policy of a rule of law as distinct from the true facts that are used in the adjudication of a controversy they are not appropriate for a rule of evidence and best left to the law-making considerations by appellate and trial courts. Subdivision (b) is in accord with the Little Cottonwood Water Co. case, supra, and the substance of Rule 9(1) and (2), Utah Rules of Evidence (1971). Utah law presumes that the law of another jurisdiction is the same as that of the State of Utah and judicial notice has been taken from the law of other states and foreign countries. Lamberth v. Lamberth, 550 P.2d 200 (Utah 1976); Maple v. Maple, 566 P.2d 1229 (Utah 1977). The Utah court has taken judicial notice under Rule 9(2), Utah Rules of Evidence (1971) of the rules and regulations of the Tax Commission. Nelson v. State Tax Comm'n, 29 Utah 2d 162, 506 P.2d 437 (1973). The broad language of subdivision (b) is identical to Rule 201 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence (1974). Judicial notice of foreign law is permissible under this rule. Provisions of this rule supersede Utah Code § 78-25-1 (1953), since the statute is merely illustrative of items encompassed within the broad framework of this rule. The foreign law of some jurisdictions might best be left to proof through witnesses if the resort to sources available in the State of Utah is questionable. Subdivision (c) is discretionary, but subdivision (d) requires the court to take judicial notice if requested by a party and if supplied with the necessary information to make a determination of whether to take judicial notice. Compare Rules 9(2) and 10(3), Utah Rules of Evidence (1971). The committee believes that Rule 201(d) simplifies the process of taking judicial notice of adjudicative facts by making it mandatory when a party makes a request therefor and supplies the court with the necessary information.