Opinion ID: 2520026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Special Master

Text: ¶61 Next, Judge Anderson asserts that the Utah Supreme Court has no authority to appoint a special master to take additional evidence. As we observed in Worthen, while the constitution does permit this court to take additional evidence, we have no ready mechanism for doing so. 926 P.2d at 864. There can be no question that the language of the constitution, article VIII, section 13, authorizes the court to permit the introduction of additional evidence in the process of our factual and legal review. How such evidence is to be introduced is left to our discretion. We have suggested in the past that the introduction of evidence by sworn affidavit and additional evidentiary proceedings before the Judicial Conduct Commission are available to us. Id. Clearly, the appointment of a master is a traditional and time-honored mechanism for accomplishing the same purpose. In fact, inasmuch as we hold no authority to command the Judicial Conduct Commission to reopen its work once it submits its recommendation to us, remand may well be a matter of discretion on the part of the Commission, rather than on the part of this court. ¶62 We find no merit in Judge Anderson's concern, and reject his challenge to our authority to appoint a special master as our agent to collect additional evidence.