Opinion ID: 3131405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Willow Street Evidence

Text: Â¶22Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â RTD also contends that the judge lacked the power to instruct the commission at the end of the hearing to disregard the Willow Street Evidence, despite the commission having deeming the evidence relevant and admissible during the hearing. By reference to our maxim of judicial control, this line of argument is unsupportable. Section 38-1-101(2)(a) grants the supervising judge broad authority to determine â[a]ll questions and issues, except the amount of compensation,â and section 38-1-105(1) expressly requires that âat the conclusion of the testimony, [the judge] shall instruct [the commission] in writing as to the applicable and proper law to be followed by them in arriving at their ascertainment.â Here, Judge Frick instructed the commission as follows: âEvidence regarding [the Willow Street property] is irrelevant and must not be considered in ascertaining the value of the subject property.â The irrelevance of a particular piece of evidence admitted by the commission is precisely the type of issue within the judgeâs instructional purview, and Judge Frick acted properly in instructing the commission to disregard evidence that she found to be irrelevant. We thereforeÂ affirm that portion of the court of appeals opinion confirming Judge Frickâs authority to instruct the commission to disregard the Willow Street Evidence as irrelevant.