Opinion ID: 1264813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The District Court Acted Within Its Discretion In Suppressing Actions Demonstrated By Barnett, As Distinguished From His Words Or Statements.

Text: In ruling on Barnett's motion to suppress statements made to the police when Barnett was first detained, the district court also suppressed evidence of Barnett's actions in leading the police to Towers' remains. Barnett argues that this evidence should not have been suppressed upon the defense's motion. He maintains that the suppression motion addressed only his statements and that the district court's ruling exceeded the scope of the defense's request. He claims that by suppressing evidence of Barnett's actions, the jury was denied the information that it was Barnett who provided to the police the location of Towers' grave and the names of the other participants in the murder, to Barnett's prejudice. Idaho Appellate Rule 35(a)(6) requires the argument portion of the brief to contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented on appeal, the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the transcript and record relied on. In that Barnett has not stated any authorities or citations in his brief to show that there was any error by the district court in this regard, we do not address the argument further on appeal. State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259, 263, 923 P.2d 966, 970 (1996).