Opinion ID: 1224193
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: lay opinion testimony regarding the reasonableness of gonda's driving conduct

Text: Child next argues that the district court committed reversible error in allowing, over Child's objection, lay witnesses to give opinion testimony regarding the supposed reasonableness of Gonda's driving conduct. However, we decline to address his argument because Child has failed to adequately brief the issue. See State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 304-05 (Utah 1998). Child's brief does not contain the witnesses' testimony regarding Gonda's driving conduct or any record citations to their testimony. Our rules of appellate procedure require that the argument in the appellant's brief 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). As we have stated, this court is not `a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.' State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 450 (Utah 1988) (quoting Williamson v. Opsahl, 92 Ill.App.3d 1087, 48 Ill.Dec. 510, 416 N.E.2d 783, 784 (Ill.App.Ct.1981)). Our decisions often turn on subtleties and nuances of fact and law. Therefore, it is not enough that Child asserts that several witnesses testified to the effect that, in their opinion, Ms. Gonda's driving was reasonable in the circumstances. To adequately address the trial court's decision to admit such testimony, we must be provided the testimony that was admitted, with citations to the record so that we may evaluate the testimony in its context. Because Child's brief is wholly inadequate in this regard, we do not address this issue.