Opinion ID: 3131405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Judicial Evidentiary Rulings Control

Text: Â¶12Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Despite the rather complex relationship between the judge and the commission during eminent domain valuation hearings, the two issues presented in this case quickly resolve themselves by reference to a simple maxim: judicial evidentiary rulings control over commission evidentiary rulings. To explain why this is so, we must first examine the statutory interplay between judge and commission. Â¶13Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â When the state or any political subdivision thereof condemns private property so as to put it to public use, it must provide the property owner with just compensation. Â§ 38-1-101(1)(a), C.R.S. (2015). If the state and the landowner are unable to reach an agreement regarding appropriate compensation, then the landowner may choose between a board of commissioners or a jury trial to determine the value of the condemned property. Â§ 38-1-101(2)(a). 5 If the landowner opts for a commission hearing, then the appropriate âcompensation shall be ascertained by a board of commissioners of not less than three disinterested and impartial freeholders.â Id. This board of commissioners is tasked only with determining appropriate compensation under the supervision of a judge, and â[a]ll questions and issues, except the amount of compensation, shall be determined by the court.â Id. The supervising judge must also issue written instructions to the commissioners regarding their duties at the beginning of the hearing and âat the conclusion of the testimony . . . as to the applicable and proper law to be followed by them in arriving at their ascertainment.â Â§ 38-1-105(1), C.R.S. (2015). Â¶14Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The confusion regarding whether and when the commission is empowered to make its own evidentiary rulings stems from a potential conflict between section 38-1-101(2)(a)âs mandate that the judge make every determination except the end compensation and section 38-1-105(2)âs statement that the commission âmay request the court to make rulings upon the propriety of the proof or objections of the parties.â We generally agree with the court of appeals that these two statutes can be harmonized as conjointly (if implicitly) authorizing the commission to make evidentiary rulings, butÂ we part with that court regarding the extent to which the commission is empowered to do so. Â¶15Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Initially, we agree with the court of appeals that commissioners have some implicit power to make evidentiary rulings without the oversight of the trial judge. RTD, Â¶Â¶ 32, 35. See also State Depât of Highways v. Mahaffey, 697 P.2d 773, 776 (Colo. App. 1984) (âThe commissioners are empowered to make their own evidentiary decisions.â (citing State Depât of Highways v. Pigg, 656 P.2d 46, 49 (Colo. App. 1982))). This power is implied in the statutory language itselfâthat the commission âmayâ ask the court to make evidentiary rulings indicates that it is not required to do soâas well as in section 38-1-105(2), which states that commissioners âshall hear the proofs and allegations of the parties according to the rules of evidence.â Moreover, some amount of evidentiary authority is pragmatically necessary for a commission to function without constantly interrupting the proceedings to consult with the judge. Thus, if the judge has not ruled on the evidence, then the commission may do so without consulting her. Â¶16Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â But the judge is still the judgeâshe is charged with deciding â[a]ll questions and issues, except the amount of compensation,â and the commission must operate within the bounds of the judgeâs supervisory authority. Â§ 38-1-101(2)(a). Therefore, any implicit power in the commission to decide evidentiary issues is necessarily subsidiary to judicial rulings, and the commission has no power to alter those rulings unilaterally. This remains true even when the judicial rulings are made in limine. Â¶17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â In reaching this conclusion, we reject the court of appealsâ likening of the commission to a âsuccessor judgeâ for two reasons: first, commissioners need not have any legal knowledge or training and so should not be granted equal footing with the judge regarding legal questions such as the admissibility of evidence; and second, the judge is still on the case and is available to reconsider prior rulings, so there is no judicial entity for the commission to succeed. Therefore, although a commission may rule on evidence if the judge has not already done so, when a judge issues a definitive ruling on the admissibility of evidenceâeither on a motion or through instructionsâ the commission is bound to follow the judgeâs ruling. 6 Â¶18Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Having established this bright-line rule of judicial preeminence, we now apply it to the evidentiary rulings at issue.