Opinion ID: 2775225
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: mr. roberts’ arguments are adequately briefed

Text: ¶17 As a preliminary matter, we address the State’s contention that Mr. Roberts’ arguments are inadequately briefed. The State 7 STATE v. ROBERTS Opinion of the Court argues that Mr. Roberts’ appellate brief “is filled with conclusory assertions and virtually bereft of citations to the record” and “provides no meaningful analysis” of the district court’s rulings. The State thus asks us to dismiss each of Mr. Roberts’ arguments as inadequately briefed. ¶18 Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure “prescribe[s] standards for the form, organization, and content of a brief on appeal.” State v. Nielsen, 2014 UT 10, ¶ 33, 326 P.3d 645. Rule 24 requires that the arguments “contain the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented . . . with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on.” UTAH R. APP. P. 24(a)(9). This standard for adequate briefing is a subjective standard, and determining compliance is left to the discretion of the appellate court. Nielsen, 2014 UT 10, ¶ 34. In exercising this discretion, we assess the adequacy of a brief “not as a matter of gauging procedural compliance with the rule, but as a necessary component of our evaluation of the case on its merits.” Id. While we may exercise our discretion to disregard or strike briefs that do not comply with rule 24’s substantive requirements, UTAH R. APP. P. 24(k), we are not required to do so. See State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 305 (Utah 1998) (explaining that “failure to cite to pertinent authority may not always render an issue inadequately briefed”). Therefore, like the marshaling requirement imposed by rule 24(a)(9) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, our adequate briefing requirement is not a “hard-and-fast default notion.” Nielsen, 2014 UT 10, ¶ 40. Instead, it is a “natural extension of an appellant’s burden of persuasion.” Id. ¶ 41. As a result, appellants who fail to follow rule 24’s substantive requirements will likely fail to persuade the court of the validity of their position. ¶19 Despite the discretionary nature of our briefing requirements, we have seen an increasing number of appellees who spend considerable time arguing over the adequacy of the appellant’s brief, rather than addressing the merits of the appellant’s position. In taking such an approach, appellees are often guilty of the very deficiency of which they complain. Although the briefing standard articulated in rule 24(a) is directed in the first instance to appellants, rule 24(b) applies those same requirements to the brief of the appellee. Broderick v. Apartment Mgmt. Consultants, L.L.C., 2012 UT 17, ¶ 10, 279 P.3d 391. As a result, an appellee who argues only that the appellant has inadequately briefed issues will likely fail to submit a brief that “contain[s] the contentions and reasons of the appellee with respect to the issues presented in the opposing brief.” 8 Cite as: 2015 UT 24 Opinion of the Court Brown v. Glover, 2000 UT 89, ¶ 22, 16 P.3d 540. Appellees who rely solely on inadequate briefing arguments therefore assume a considerable risk of defaulting on appeal. ¶20 In this case, although the State’s initial brief addressed the merits of some of Mr. Roberts’ claims, it did not address the merits of two of his claims. Instead, it argued only that those claims had been inadequately briefed. In so doing, the State took the risk that we would disagree with its assessment of the adequacy of Mr. Roberts’ briefing and thereby forfeit its chance to respond to the merits of those two claims. While we could have defaulted the State for its failure to argue the substance of the issues, we exercised our discretion to provide the State with an opportunity to supplement its brief. We caution, however, that an appellee who fails to respond to the merits of an appellant’s argument will risk default. Rather than challenging the adequacy of an appellant’s brief, an appellee should instead layout the relevant legal standard and point out why the appellant has failed to carry his burden of persuasion. ¶21 Having clarified the standard for adequate briefing, we conclude that most of Mr. Roberts’ arguments are adequately briefed. Although Mr. Roberts’ arguments are in some instances poorly articulated and weakly supported by legal authority, his briefing does not fall below the requirements of rule 24. Unlike cases where the appellant “failed to cite any case law from any jurisdiction in order to set forth the elements of, or the legal standards for, his claims,” Carlton v. Brown, 2014 UT 6, ¶ 20, 323 P.3d 571, Mr. Roberts has generally cited to legal authority to support his arguments. And while his citations to the record are sparse, he has, for the most part, directed this court to the relevant motions, memoranda, and district court rulings that are the subject of his appeal. ¶22 In summary, Mr. Roberts has adequately briefed most of his arguments. That some of his arguments are not well organized or persuasive does not necessarily mean they are inadequately briefed. Instead, it suggests that Mr. Roberts has not satisfied his burden of persuasion on appeal.5 5 We do, however, agree with the State as to the inadequacy of Mr. Roberts’ arguments that the district court erred in denying his motion to clarify its ruling on the discovery of the Wyoming Toolkit. Although Mr. Roberts asserts error, he does not direct us to any place in the record where the district court made a ruling on this (continued...) 9 STATE v. ROBERTS Opinion of the Court