State of Utah, in the interest of L.S.

State of Utah, in the interest of L.S., a person under eighteen years of age, Case No. 990245-CA, Filed June 8, 2000 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of L.S.,
a person under eighteen years of age.
______________________________

L.S.,
Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,
Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990245-CA

F I L E D
June 8, 2000 2000 UT App 169 -----

Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Joseph W. Anderson

Attorneys:
Sharon Fields and David Geary, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Jan Graham and Karen A. Klucznik, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Davis.

DAVIS, Judge:

L.S. appeals the trial court's adjudication finding him guilty of sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-404.1(1) (1999).

L.S. first challenges the trial judge's refusal to recuse himself after being introduced to the victim and her sister and mother. Whether a trial judge erred by failing to recuse himself or herself presents a question of law which we review for correctness. See State v. Alonzo, 973 P.2d 975, 979 (Utah 1998).

We agree with Judge Oddone that there has been no showing of actual bias. Because Judge Anderson complied with Rule 29 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure by having Judge Oddone review the matter, and Judge Oddone approved Judge Anderson continuing on the case, "the burden shifted to [L.S.] to show actual bias or abuse of discretion." Alonzo, 973 P.2d at 979. "Actual prejudice can be shown when there exists a reasonable likelihood that the result would have been more favorable for the defendants absent the trial judge's appearance of bias." Id. The mere fact that the nine-year-old victim was introduced to the judge before trial in an attempt to familiarize her with the surroundings to make her more comfortable when testifying does not create a reasonable likelihood that, had this introduction not occurred, there would have been a more favorable result for L.S. Accordingly, no actual prejudice has been shown and this claim of error fails.

L.S. argues next that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a videotape of the victim's interview without first making written findings as required by Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-411 (1999). "[Section 76-5-411]'s plain language clearly indicates that the statute applies only to a child victim's out-of-court statements that are not otherwise admissible under existing evidentiary rules." Julian v. State, 966 P.2d 249, 255 (Utah 1998). The trial court here admitted the videotape into evidence under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Utah Rules of Evidence. Because L.S. does not challenge this ruling on appeal, we do not address the correctness of the trial court's determination. Accordingly, because the trial court admitted the videotape "under existing evidentiary rules," it was not required to make findings under section 76-5-411.

Lastly, L.S. assails the admission of the victim's mother's testimony at trial. L.S. concedes that the testimony was not objected to at trial, but argues that its admission was plain error. Notwithstanding, not only has L.S. failed to identify what statements he takes issue with, but he has also failed to provide any record citation where we could locate and review the allegedly inadmissible testimony. See Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). "'[A] reviewing court is entitled to have the issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and is not simply 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) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds byState v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393 (Utah 1994). Because L.S. felt it unnecessary to provide us with the offending statements, we decline to reach this issue. See West Valley City v. Majestic Inv. Co., 818 P.2d 1311, 1313 n.1 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) ("We remind counsel that it is our prerogative to affirm the lower court decision solely on the basis of failure to comply with the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.").

Affirmed.
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge ----- WE CONCUR:
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge