Opinion ID: 2637458
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Error as to Jury Instructions Given

Text: ¶ 43 We will first dispose of the Gorostietas' argument regarding jury instructions 16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28. It is well established that a reviewing court will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed. State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 304 (Utah 1998); see also State v. Thomas, 1999 UT 2, ¶ 11, 974 P.2d 269; Walker v. U.S. Gen., Inc., 916 P.2d 903, 908 (Utah 1996). Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that the [b]rief of the appellant shall contain . . . [an] argument [that] shall 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) (emphasis added). An appellate court `is not simply a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.' Thomas, 1999 UT 2 at ¶ 11, 974 P.2d 269 (quoting State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 450 (Utah 1988)). ¶ 44 The Gorostietas complain of jury instructions 16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28 in their statement of the issues but then completely fail to support this claim anywhere in their argument or their reply brief. We therefore do not address it.