Opinion ID: 2602301
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: juvenile status

Text: ¶ 34 Further, Lusk argues that he cannot be found culpable for any of the charges filed in the district court if any of the actions allegedly resulting in those charges occurred between August 1, 1983, and August 18, 1983, when Lusk was still a minor. However, we will not reach this issue. It is beyond the scope of review for which this court granted Lusk's interlocutory appeal. Further, this issue was not adequately briefed, researched, or presented, and as we have held on numerous occasions, we will not address issues not adequately briefed. MacKay v. Hardy, 973 P.2d 941, 948 (Utah 1998); see also Brewer v. Denver & Rio Grande W.R.R., 2001 UT 77, n. 4, 31 P.3d 557 ([T]his court `is not simply a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.' (quoting State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 450 (Utah 1988))). Therefore, we remand without addressing this issue.