When must Utah courts give adverse inference instructions? Miller v. UDOT Explained

In Miller v. UDOT, the Utah Supreme Court addressed when trial courts must provide adverse inference instructions regarding evidence excluded by federal law, clarifying standards that affect how practitioners handle cases involving federally protected data.

Background and Facts

Following a fatal highway accident on Interstate 15, the Millers sued UDOT alleging negligent failure to install median barriers. The Millers sought accident history data to support their negligence theory, but 23 U.S.C. § 409 prohibited discovery of UDOT’s accident database compiled for federal highway safety programs. Despite this exclusion, UDOT repeatedly elicited testimony about the importance of crash history in safety decisions, leaving the jury to potentially infer that the absence of such evidence suggested the road was safe.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing the Millers’ request for an adverse inference instruction directing the jury not to let the absence of federally excluded accident history evidence affect their deliberations. Secondary issues included the scope of Section 409’s protection and proper voir dire procedures.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court held that district courts review jury instruction refusals for abuse of discretion, but that discretion is strictly limited when parties are legally entitled to particular instructions. Where evidence crucial to a party’s theory is excluded by federal law, and the opposing party introduces testimony about the importance of such evidence, the excluded party is entitled to an appropriately worded adverse inference instruction. The court found the district court abused its discretion by refusing this instruction, requiring remand for new trial.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial guidance for practitioners dealing with federally protected evidence. When Section 409 or similar federal statutes exclude evidence central to your case theory, proactively request adverse inference instructions in pretrial motions. The court emphasized that such instructions should be “even-handed,” directing juries not to draw inferences in either direction from the absence of excluded evidence. Additionally, the court encouraged broader use of written jury questionnaires during voir dire, noting their efficiency in identifying potential bias with minimal court time investment.