Can Utah trial courts use mapping software not introduced as evidence? White v. Randall Explained

In White v. Randall, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court may use mapping software to create evidence that was never introduced by the parties at trial. The case provides important guidance for practitioners on the boundaries of judicial fact-finding and the consequences of acquiescence to procedural irregularities.

Background and Facts

White and Randall owned neighboring properties that were originally part of a single parcel owned by Kaziah May Hancock. Hancock’s property included a pond that could store water for irrigation. White purchased the lower portion with irrigation rights, while Randall later bought the upper portion containing the pond. When relations soured, Randall eventually removed the pond entirely. White sued, seeking an easement to use the pond and damages for its destruction.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the district court erred by using mapping software to create topographical maps that had never been introduced as evidence, then relying on those maps to craft White’s easement remedy. White argued this violated the fundamental principle that courts cannot go outside the evidence to make findings, citing Salt Lake City v. United Park City Mines Co.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from United Park City Mines, where the Utah Supreme Court strictly prohibited using evidence outside the record. Here, the court found three key differences: (1) topographical information constitutes general knowledge rather than specialized expertise; (2) both parties were informed of the court’s actions and acquiesced by using the maps in their arguments; and (3) White demonstrated no harm from the maps’ use. The court emphasized that while the district court technically erred, the parties’ acquiescence and lack of demonstrated harm rendered the error harmless.

Practice Implications

This decision highlights the critical importance of timely objections to procedural irregularities. Practitioners should immediately object when courts consider evidence outside the record, as silence or acquiescence may waive appellate challenges. The concurring opinion emphasized that absent the parties’ acquiescence, the error would have warranted reversal, underscoring that the fundamental rule against extra-record evidence remains intact.