State of Utah v. Snarr

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Mark Isaac Snarr,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010083-CA

F I L E D
February 14, 2002 2002 UT App 41 -----

Second District, Ogden Department
The Honorable Michael Lyon

Attorneys:
Maurice Richards and Jerald Engstrom, Ogden, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff and Karen A. Klucznik, Salt Lake City, for Appellee -----

Before Judges Jackson, Billings, and Davis.

DAVIS, Judge:

Implicit in Rule 24(a)(9) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure is the requirement that briefs to this court contain, not just bald assertions and citations, but development of cited authorities and reasoned analysis. See State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 305 (Utah 1998). Appellant fails to explain why the jury was required to determine that there was a completed assault,(1) what the elements of assault are, or why the only possible assault during the altercation in the residence occurred when the appellant threw a beer can at the victim. Appellant incorrectly states the standard of review when challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. See Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Appellant also fails to marshal the evidence properly. See Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9); State v. Shepherd, 1999 UT App 305,¶25, 989 P.2d 503 (requiring an appellant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to first "marshal all the evidence supporting the jury's verdict and then demonstrate how this evidence, even viewed in the most favorable light, is insufficient to support the verdict" (quotations and citation omitted)).

Appellant goes beyond a mere failure to marshal, however. He repeatedly mischaracterizes the record evidence by asserting that there was no testimony regarding who threw the beer can. This is misleading. The victim's direct testimony was that it was appellant who threw a beer can at him contemporaneously with attempting to move towards him and yelling: "You fucking nigger, I'm going to beat your ass; I'm going to hang you."

Based on the foregoing, we are not required to consider appellant's argument. See Thomas, 961 P.2d at 304. Even were we to address appellant's claim, however, we would conclude that the evidence and reasonable inferences, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, see, e.g., State v. Widdison, 2001 UT 60,¶74, 28 P.3d 1278, are sufficient to support the verdict.

Affirmed.
 
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Presiding Judge
 
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings,
Associate Presiding Judge

1. See State v. Rudolph, 970 P.2d 1221, 1227 (Utah 1998) (stating it was sufficient to establish burglary if assault was intended); State v. Brooks, 631 P.2d 878, 881 (Utah 1981) (stating the intent to commit the underlying crime is all that is required to establish burglary).