Print Version
Previous PageFile uploaded: 4/4/2012

Rule101. Scope; Definitions

 

 

(a)    Scope. These rules apply to proceedings inUtah courts. The specific courts and proceedings to which the rules apply,along with exceptions, are set out in Rule 1101.

 

(b)    Definitions. In these rules:

 

(1)    “civil case” means a civil action orproceeding;

 

(2)    “criminal case” includes a criminalproceeding;

 

(3)    “publicoffice” includes a public agency;

 

(4)    “record” includes a memorandum,report, or data compilation;

 

(5)    a reference to any kind of writtenmaterial or any other medium includes electronically stored information.

 

 

2011 Advisory CommitteeNote. – The languageof this rule has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules tomake them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistentthroughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There isno intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

 

ADVISORYCOMMITTEE NOTE

 

Adaptedfrom Rule 101, Uniform Rules of Evidence (1974). Rule 1101 contains exceptionsdealing with preliminary questions of fact, grand jury proceedings,miscellaneous judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and summary contemptproceedings. Rule 101 and 1101 are comparable to Rule 2 of the Utah Rules ofEvidence (1971), except that Rule 2 made applicable other procedural rules(i.e., civil/criminal) or applicable statutes to the extent that they relax theRules of Evidence. In addition, Rule 2 of the Utah Rules of Evidence (1971)expressly made the rules applicable to both civil and criminal proceedings.

 

Rule101 adopts a general policy making the Rules of Evidence applicable in allinstances in courts of the state including situations previously governed bystatute, except to the extent that specific statutory provisions are expresslyretained. Rule 101 also rejects Lopes v. Lopes, 30 Utah 2d 393, 518 P.2d 687(1974) to the extent that it permits ad hoc development of special rules ofcourt inconsistent with these Rules of Evidence.

 

Theposition of the court in State v. Hansen, 588 P.2d 164 (Utah 1978) thatstatutory provisions of evidence law inconsistent with the rules will takeprecedence is rejected.