should consider requirement in Utah

2017“An issue is inadequately briefed when the overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court.” Smith v. Smith, 1999 UT App 370, ¶ 8 , 995 P.2d 14 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶30 Here, Father makes two references to the exceptional-circumstances doctrine, stating that he “should be viewed as having established an ‘exceptional circumstance,’ ” and that “this Court should consider the requirement of exceptional circumstance[s] in presenting this issue for the first time on appeal.” However, he fails to cite any

2017“An issue is inadequately briefed when the overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court.” Smith v. Smith, 1999 UT App 370, ¶ 8 , 995 P.2d 14 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶30 Here, Father makes two references to the exceptional-circumstances doctrine, stating that he “should be viewed as having established an ‘exceptional circumstance,’ ” and that “this Court should consider the requirement of exceptional circumstance[s] in presenting this issue for the first time on appeal.” However, he fails to cite any

2017“An issue is inadequately briefed when the overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court.” Smith v. Smith, 1999 UT App 370, ¶ 8 , 995 P.2d 14 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶30 Here, Father makes two references to the exceptional- circumstances doctrine, stating that he “should be viewed as 20150613-CA 13 2017 UT App 106 In re X.C.H. having established an ‘exceptional circumstance,’” and that “this Court should consider the requirement of exceptional circumstance[s] in presenting this issue for the first tim

2007When determining whether the probative value of prior bad act evidence is substantially outweighed by potential prejudice to a defendant, the trial court should consider factors known as the Shickles 5 See Bradley, 2002 UT App 348 at ¶29 , 57 P.3d 1139 .

2007When determining whether the probative value of prior bad act evidence is substantially outweighed by potential prejudice to a defendant, the trial court should consider factors known as the Shickles 5 See Bradley, 2002 UT App 348 at ¶29 , 57 P.3d 1139 .

1997In making its threshold determination of offensiveness, a court should consider such factors as “the degree of intrusion, the context, conduct and circumstances surrounding the intrusion as well as the intruder’s motives and objectives, the setting into which he intrudes, and the expectations of those whose privacy is invaded.” Miller, 232 Cal.Rptr. at 679 .

1996In balancing the probative value of Rule 404(b) evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice, the trial court should consider factors such as “ ‘[1] the similarities between the crimes [and] the interval of time that has elapsed between the crimes, [2] the need for the evidence [and] the efficacy of alternative proof, and [3] the degree to which the evidence probably will rouse the jury to overmastering hostility.’ ” Id. (citation omitted).

1988Actual reliance on the statement need not be shown, however; the statement need only form a “part of the basis of the bargain.” Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-313; Jensen, 105 Idaho at 194-95 , 668 P.2d at 71 ; Autzen v. John C.

1988Actual reliance on the statement need not be shown, however; the statement need only form a “part of the basis of the bargain.” Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-313; Jensen, 105 Idaho at 194-95 , 668 P.2d at 71 ; Autzen v. John C.