Any error was not of the magnitude to conclude that Jesse was denied a fair trial. Finally, we note, as the State points out in its brief, that Jesse Thomas' appellate brief contains no specific references to the record nor cites any law in support of these last two arguments in violation of Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (134 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7)). (See People v. Trimble (1989), 181 Ill. App.3d 355, 356.) We are entitled to have the issues clearly defined and to be cited pertinent authority.
• 12, 13 While defendant complains of several such evidentiary rulings by the trial court, he does not cite a single authority in support of his contention that these rulings were erroneous. Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (113 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7)) requires citation of authority in support of contentions made on appeal. The appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research. ( People v. Trimble (1989), 181 Ill. App.3d 355, 356.) In the case at bar, as in Trimble, the State pointed out the shortcomings in defendant's initial brief, but defendant failed to cite any authority in support of his contentions in his reply brief.
The purpose of this rule is to provide "[a] court of review" with "clearly defined" issues and cites to "pertinent authority." People v. Trimble, 181 Ill. App. 3d 355, 356 (1989) (discussing the provisions of former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7), which is now numbered as Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7), and its importance to the appellate court). A reviewing court "is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research."
Our research of federal and foreign states' case law has not unveiled any cases where a defendant was convicted of this type of crime for lying about details other than whether a crime had actually been committed. See, e.g., Smith v. Arkansas, 1999 WL 200671 [unpublished opinion] (Ark App, 1999) (false report that husband broke into home); People v. Trimble, 181 Ill. App.3d 355; 537 N.E.2d 363 (1989) (defendant falsely told police his car was stolen); State v. Matilla, 339 N.W.2d 54, 55 (Minn, 1983) (defendant falsely reported being burglarized); State v. Kachanis, 119 R.I. 439, 440; 379 A.2d 915 (1977) (defendant falsely reported his car stolen). [2] The trial court's finding that a carjacking actually occurred is unchallenged on appeal.
¶ 62 A defendant waives an issue on appeal if he fails to give factual support for his position by citation to the record (People v. Trimble, 181 Ill. App. 3d 355, 356 (1989)), or fails to cite authority in support of his argument (People v. Ramirez, 98 Ill. 2d 439, 472 (1983)). Hill's brief fails to provide any citation to the record in support of his claims regarding Harris's criminal history.
Statements unsupported by argument or citation of relevant authority do not merit consideration on review. Hutchings, 212 Ill. App. 3d at 183; People v. Trimble, 181 Ill. App. 3d 355, 356 (1989). A reviewing court will not become an advocate for, as well as the judge of, points the appellant seeks to raise.
”Jones v. Commonwealth, 51 Va.App. 730, 734–35, 660 S.E.2d 343, 345 (2008) (quoting People v. Trimble, 181 Ill.App.3d 355, 130 Ill.Dec. 296, 537 N.E.2d 363, 364 (1989) (internal citations omitted)), aff'd in part and vacated in part,279 Va. 52, 60, 688 S.E.2d 269, 273 (2010). “Unsupported assertions of error ‘do not merit appellate consideration.’ ”
On the other hand, strict compliance with the rules permits a reviewing court to ascertain the integrity of the parties' assertions which is essential to an accurate determination of the issues raised on appeal. People v. Trimble, 181 Ill.App.3d 355, 130 Ill.Dec. 296, 537 N.E.2d 363, 364 (1989) (internal citations omitted). This Court frequently cites Buchanan, 14 Va.App. at 56, 415 S.E.2d at 239, for the proposition that a party violates Rule 5A:20(e) when it fails to present a legal argument to this Court.
On the other hand, strict compliance with the rules permits a reviewing court to ascertain the integrity of the parties' assertions which is essential to an accurate determination of the issues raised on appeal. People v. Trimble, 537 N.E.2d 363, 364 (Ill.App.Ct. 1989) (internal citations omitted). This Court frequently cites Buchanan, 14 Va. App. at 56, 415 S.E.2d at 239, for the proposition that a party violates Rule 5A:20(e) when it fails to present a legal argument to this Court.
This court is not a depository wherein we must research and develop the parties' claims and arguments. People v. Trimble, 181 Ill. App. 3d 355, 356 (1989). This court is entitled to have the issues clearly defined and to be cited pertinent authority; arguments that do not satisfy the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 341 (210 Ill. 2d R. 341) do not merit consideration on appeal.