Print Version
Previous PageFile uploaded: 6/10/2019

Rule 101.Scope; Definitions.


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


(b)    Definitions. In these rules:

 ?????????? (b)(1)    ?civil case? means a civil action or proceeding;


(b)(2)    ?criminal case? includes a criminalproceeding;


(b)(3)    ?public office?includes a public agency;


(b)(4)    ?record? includes a memorandum, report,or data compilation;


(b)(5)    a reference to any kind ofwritten material or any other medium includes electronically storedinformation.



2011Advisory Committee Note. The language of this rule has been amendedas part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easilyunderstood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.These changes are intended to be stylistic only. Thereis no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.


Original Advisory CommitteeNote.? Adapted from Rule 101, Uniform Rules of Evidence (1974). Rule 1101contains exceptions dealing with preliminary questions of fact, grand juryproceedings, miscellaneous judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and summarycontempt proceedings. Rule 101 and 1101 are comparable to Rule 2 of the UtahRules of Evidence (1971), except that Rule 2 made applicable other proceduralrules (i.e., civil/criminal) or applicable statutes to the extent that theyrelax the Rules of Evidence. In addition, Rule 2 of the Utah Rules of Evidence(1971) expressly made the rules applicable to both civil and criminalproceedings.


Rule 101adopts 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.2d687 (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.