context: The Kurzets ignore the record evidence of phone calls Allen received from Mr. Kurzet, as well as numerous phone calls Allen made "concerning the job." Because the Kurzets fail to marshal the evidence in favor of finding number fifteen, we do not address this challenge.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: "We decline to address this issue because defendant has failed to marshal the evidence."
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Mincy, 888 P.2d 648, 652 n. 1 (Utah.Ct.App.1992) (“We decline to address this issue because defendant has failed to marshal the evidence.”); cf. State v. Ortiz, 782 P.2d 959, 962 (Utah.Ct.App.1989) (“We have consistently held that if counsel on appeal does not provide citations to the record, we need not reach the merits of his or her substantive claims.”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 782 P.2d 959, 962
citation_b.parenthetical: "We have consistently held that if counsel on appeal does not provide citations to the record, we need not reach the merits of his or her substantive claims."
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Mincy, 888 P.2d 648, 652 n. 1 (Utah.Ct.App.1992) (“We decline to address this issue because defendant has failed to marshal the evidence.”); cf. State v. Ortiz, 782 P.2d 959, 962 (Utah.Ct.App.1989) (“We have consistently held that if counsel on appeal does not provide citations to the record, we need not reach the merits of his or her substantive claims.”).