Opinion ID: 874391
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The error was prejudicial to Kootenai County.

Text: Even if the district court abused its discretion in allowing the additional evidence, it must also be shown that the court's error in including the additional evidence is prejudicial. Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 144 Idaho 72, 77, 156 P.3d 573, 578 (2007). An error is prejudicial only if it could have affected or did affect the outcome of a proceeding. Id. (emphasis added). In Crown Point, this Court found that since the district court had relied on improperly admitted evidence in reaching its decision, the erroneous inclusion of additional evidence was prejudicial and an abuse of discretion. Id. In contrast, in Urrutia v. Blaine County, 134 Idaho 353, 2 P.3d 738 (2000), this Court found that the appellant was not prejudiced as a result of the district court's inclusion of additional evidence. The district court's final opinion in Urrutia did not mention the additional evidence and instead focused on the appellant county board of commissioners' misinterpretation of law. 134 Idaho at 361, 2 P.3d at 746. Therefore, the inclusion of the additional evidence constituted harmless error. Id. Here, it is difficult to determine the basis for the district court's decision given the short written finding by the court that the denial of the variance requests was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. The district court did not directly mention the additional evidence in its final opinion. Instead, in its oral decision, the district court focused on the showing of undue hardship and the lack of evidence that the variance was in conflict with the public interest. However, given the district court's reasoning for allowing the other application in the first placeI don't know of any other way to prove at least arbitrary behavior than by close comparison with different outcomes it is highly likely that the district court considered the application in determining that the Board's decision had been arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. When granting the motion to augment the record the court also stated: [T]he commissioners can still be wrong, and so I don't know how much relevance this is going to bring to the situation, but on the other hand, I don't know how else any petitioner could really prove at least the arbitrary nature of someone's action without proof such as this, so I realize what the case law has restricted me to on my review. Thus, while the court acknowledged that it was restricted in its consideration of the additional evidence, it also recognized that it would have difficulty finding the Board's decision to be arbitrary without considering the other application. Given the district court's final finding that the Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, we find that the district court's inclusion of the evidence was prejudicial because it affected the outcome of the proceeding.