in the ongoing investigation of the defendant. 2 . The term "curio” is listed as an exception to culpability under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 908(b). Our court has explained the term as "a thing of curiosity — some momento, or something you came into possession of.” Commonwealth v. McCue, 338 Pa.Super. 117, 127, 487 A.2d 880, 886 (1985). The Summary of Argument section of the Commonwealth’s appellate brief states that "whether the knives had a common lawful purpose is [an issue] that should have been left to the jury” and which required reversal of the trial court and remanding the case for further proceedings. Because the "curio defense" has neither been identified nor argued as an issue on appeal, we will not address its merits. See Commonwealth v. Sanford, 299 Pa.Super. 64, 445 A.2d 149 (1982) (<HOLDING>). 3 .Unlike a defendant who may not immediately
holding that where issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs a court will not consider the merits thereof recognizing that an appellate court ordinarily will not consider issues that were not raised at trial recognizing that we lack jurisdiction to consider issues not raised in the parties briefs holding that issues not clearly raised in initial briefs are considered abandoned holding courts do not consider points not raised in briefs