Utah. R. Evid. 1101
2019 Advisory Committee Note: Regarding subsection (c)(4): In State v. Weeks, 2002 UT 98, 61 P.3d 1000, the Utah Supreme Court explained the "wisdom of not applying the evidence rules to sentencing and restitution hearings. Id. at ¶ 17. The breadth of information available at such hearings has always been wide. See Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949) ("[B]oth before and since the American colonies became a nation, courts . . . practiced a policy under which a sentencing judge could exercise a wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence used to assist him in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed within limits fixed by law.). Granting flexibility allows trial courts to fashion just sentences- including court-ordered restitution-based on the facts of a given case. It benefits defendants because one form of punishment (restitution) may allow them to avoid a greater fine, incarceration, or both. Finally, it benefits victims by ensuring that they don't endure a "minitrial on restitution, and fines that might have gone to the State may instead go to the victim in the form of restitution. Weeks , 2002 UT 98, ¶¶ 17-19.
2011 Advisory Committee Note. The language of this rule has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.