2013-03-22_REVISION - C1981008 (2)

Home Browse Search

determination of evidentiary matters during § 24 -4 -105 hearing within the discretion of the Board); Kollodge v. Charnes, 741 P.2d 1260, 1261 (Colo. App. 1987) (recognizing wide discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence during administrative hearings). Similarly, the Rules grant the Board discretion in whether to receive evidence. Rule 2.07.4(3)(e). Like an appellate court's review of a trial court's exclusion of evidence, courts review the exclusion of evidence during an administrative hearing for an abuse of discretion. Shaball, 799 P.2d at 405. 2. Plaintiffs' Dilatory Request for the NRCS Determination is Not An "Unforeseen Circumstance " The Board did not abuse its discretion by excluding the November 16, 2010 NRCS letters because admission of the letters amounted to trial by ambush. 17 Section 24 -4 -105 authorized the Board "to establish procedures under which administrative adjudicatory proceedings are conducted, including those specified in the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure." ( "C.R.C.P. ") Weiss v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 847 P.2d 197, 199 (Colo. App. 1992). Courts "look to the requirements of the [C.R.C.P.] Rules for guidance" when evaluating whether an abuse of discretion occurred. Id. The C.R.C.P requires exchanging information before trial or hearing to eliminate secrets and surprise and simplify the issues. Haddock v. J &JRoofing Co., 700 P.2d 935, 936 (Colo. App. 1985). Excluding evidence that a party failed to timely disclose is appropriate unless exclusion is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair. Horton v. Bischof & Foffman Constr., LLC, 217 P.3d 1262, 1267 -68 (Colo. App. 2009). 17 Ms. Turner discussed the letters during the Board hearing twice. R. 7341 -7342, 7377 -7378. The Division objected because the delayed introduction prejudiced any parties' ability to consider or rebut the evidence. R. 7378. In response, the Board's Chair stated "I would agree." Id.