California Law: Can Judges Take Notice?

A judge can take notice of California law under the California Evidence Code §§451–453. This is consistent with Uniform Rule 9(1) and (2) which limit judicial notice of facts to those “so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute,” and those “so generally known or of such common notoriety within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute”. Judicial notice may be taken of matters including the decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States, regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States, and official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States.

Judicial notice of adjudicative facts

In the US, Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the judicial notice of adjudicative facts. Adjudicative facts are those that are directly related to the specific case at hand, also known as the facts of the particular case. They are facts concerning the immediate parties, such as who did what, where, when, how, and with what motive or intent. These are the facts that normally go to the jury in a jury case.

Judicial notice is a tool that helps streamline legal proceedings and avoids unnecessary disputes over widely accepted or easily verifiable facts. It allows courts to recognise and accept certain facts as true without formal proof. However, this recognition is subject to rules of relevance and reliability, and parties still have the opportunity to present evidence or challenge the noticed facts when appropriate. If a court takes judicial notice of a fact, it is accepted as true in the case. In a civil case, the court must instruct the jury to accept the noticed fact as conclusive. However, in a criminal case, the court must instruct the jury that it may or may not accept the noticed fact as conclusive.

The court may take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is either:

• Generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction
• Can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned

For example, in People v. Pride, 16 Ill.2d 82, 156 N.E.2d 551 (1951), venue in Cook County was established by testimony that a crime occurred at 8900 South Anthony Avenue, as the court took notice of the common practice of omitting the name of the city when speaking of local addresses, and the witness was testifying in Chicago.

Matters that may be subject to judicial notice include:

• The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state
• Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States
• Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States
• Records of any court of this state or any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States
• Rules of court of any court of this state or any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States
• The law of an organisation of nations and of foreign nations and public entities in foreign nations

Judicial notice of facts universally known

In the United States, Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs judicial notice of adjudicative facts. This rule is consistent with Uniform Rule 9(1) and (2), which limit judicial notice of facts to those that are "so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute".

Judicial notice is the process by which a court accepts a fact as true without requiring formal proof or evidence. Adjudicative facts are the facts of a particular case, as opposed to legislative facts, which are relevant to legal reasoning and the law-making process. Judicial notice of adjudicative facts can be taken at any stage of the proceeding.

The kinds of facts that may be judicially noticed are those that are not subject to reasonable dispute because they are either:

• Generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or
• Can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

For example, in United States v. Erickson, the court took judicial notice of the fact that several states had recognised the harmful effects of nitrous oxide inhalation by criminalising it. Similarly, in United States v. Green, the court took judicial notice of expert testimony that had an established scientific, technical, legal, judicial, or evidentiary foundation regarding reliability and relevance.

In Australia, judicial notice may be taken of facts that are "not reasonably open to question". This may include, for example, the location of well-known geographical features. However, both parties must be given notice of the judicial officer's intention to rely on this information.

In Canada, the Supreme Court has required Canadian courts to take judicial notice of the history of colonialism and its harmful effects on Indigenous peoples. This includes matters such as colonialism, displacement, residential schools, and how this history continues to impact Aboriginal peoples today.

Judicial notice of facts generally known in the jurisdiction

In the United States, Article II of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) addresses judicial notice in federal courts, and this article is widely adopted by U.S. states. FRE 201 covers judicial notice of adjudicative facts, which are those concerning the parties to a proceeding.

Judicial notice is frequently used for simple, obvious, common-sense facts, such as the day of the week corresponding to a particular date or the approximate sunset time. It can also be used within one jurisdiction to notice a law of another jurisdiction, such as one that provides average baselines for motor vehicle stopping distances.

• The existence and jurisdiction of the various courts of the state
• Well-known practices in farming, construction work, transportation, and other businesses and professions
• The characteristics of familiar tools and appliances, weapons, intoxicants, and poisons
• The facts of history, important current events, general economic and social conditions, and matters affecting public health and safety
• The meaning of words and abbreviations, and the results of mathematical computations
• Dates, times, locations, street names, distances, and similar facts that are relevant and helpful to the case

In California, the Evidence Code Sections 451–453 outline the rules for judicial notice, which are consistent with Uniform Rule 9(1) and (2).

Judicial notice of California Evidence Code §§451–453

California Evidence Code §§451–453 outlines the matters that a judge can take judicial notice of. Judicial notice is the act of accepting a fact as true without requiring additional proof.

Section 451 of the California Evidence Code states that a judge can take judicial notice of specific facts that are "so universally known" that they cannot be disputed. These include matters of common knowledge and facts capable of verification. For example, facts relating to the personnel and records of the court, and other governmental facts.

Section 452 of the Code further elaborates on the types of matters that may be subject to judicial notice. These include:

• The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state in the US, as well as the resolutions and private acts of the US Congress and the state legislature.
• Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the US or any public entity in the country.
• Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the US and of any individual state.
• Records and rules of court of any state or federal court of record in the US.
• The law of an organization of nations, foreign nations, and public entities in foreign nations.

The approach taken by California Evidence Code §§451–453 is similar to Uniform Rule 9, which makes judicial notice of universally known facts mandatory, while for facts generally known in a jurisdiction, it is discretionary unless a request is made and the information furnished.

In summary, California Evidence Code §§451–453 provides a framework for judges to take judicial notice of specific matters, primarily related to laws, regulations, official acts, court records, and foreign laws, without requiring additional proof or dispute.

Judicial notice and procedural fairness

Judicial notice is a judge's recognition of a fact that is not formally put into evidence by either party in a case. In the United States, Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence outlines the conditions under which judicial notice of adjudicative facts may be taken. This rule is consistent with Uniform Rule 9(1) and (2), which limit judicial notice of facts to those that are "so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute" or "so generally known or of such common notoriety within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute".

California has a detailed statutory regulation of judicial notice, following a similar pattern to the Uniform Rules. California Evidence Code §§451-453 outline the matters that may be subject to judicial notice, including:

• The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States
• Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States
• Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States
• Records and rules of court
• The law of an organization of nations and of foreign nations and public entities in foreign nations

Procedural fairness, also known as "natural justice", is a concept that evolved from two common law principles: firstly, that a decision-maker should not judge their own case or have an interest in the outcome, and secondly, that a decision-maker should listen to both sides of a case before making a decision. It is concerned with the fairness of the procedure by which a decision is made, rather than the fairness of the outcome.

Procedural fairness requires that each party in a case exchanges important evidence that they intend to use, so that both sides can make informed arguments about all of the evidence. It also requires that the person affected by a decision has the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly, and that they are given the chance to be heard. If procedural fairness is not observed, a person may seek judicial review of an administrative decision.

Frequently asked questions