Because this was an exceedingly belated attempt to introduce new evidence, we decline to consider these supplemental materials as part of the record. See State v. Law, 2003 UT App 228, ¶ 2, 75 P.3d 923 (noting that motions to supplement the record are inappropriate if used to "introduce new material into the record"). ¶ 6 The malpractice suit went to trial in December 2000 and resulted in a judgment against Drezga worth nearly $2.3 million.
Judge Harding's rulings were entirely reasonable and appropriate based on the evidence, law, and arguments of the parties. Thus, because "there is nothing in the record suggesting Judge Harding was under the influence of any drug during any of Defendant's proceedings and, . . . [Defendant] cannot show if or how Judge Harding, by reason of drug use, abused his discretion . . . [or demonstrate] how Defendant's due process rights were violated," State v. Law, 2003 UT App 228, ¶ 3, 75 P.3d 923 (mem.), Defendant's due process claim fails. Defendant also asserts a variety of other claims on appeal that are unsupported by any legal authority, analysis, or record citations.