ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

KAREN R. BAKER, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

HERMAN FOLK

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR99-1319

NOVEMBER 28, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE DREW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR97-237-1-2]

HONORABLE SAMUEL B. POPE, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

A jury in Drew County Circuit Court convicted appellant, Herman Glenn Folk, Sr., of delivery of a controlled substance, a violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-401 (Supp. 2001). He was sentenced to a term of 120 months in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Although appellant lists six points on appeal, we have determined that each point merely challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

On July 24, 1997, an informant, Mr. Glenn Crosswhite, and Drew County Deputy Garcia drove to appellant's residence. The informant went inside, while Deputy Garcia remained in the vehicle. The informant was inside appellant's residence for only a few minutes, and then he returned to the vehicle where Garcia was waiting. The informant had received two lumps of a substance later determined to be cocaine.

During trial, Sheriff Tommy Free testified that he and two other deputies met an informant at the Union Ridge Cemetery prior to going to appellant's home. At the cemetery, a pat-downsearch of the informant's clothing was conducted; he was told to remove his shoes and socks and turn his pockets inside out. The area around the driver's compartment of the informant's van was also searched for money and drugs. The informant was wired with a voice-activated audio player, and he was given forty dollars to make the purchase. Sheriff Free did not accompany the informant to appellant's home; he and another officer waited around the corner.

Deputy Garcia testified that he rode in the passenger seat while the informant drove to appellant's residence. Upon arriving at appellant's residence, the informant got out of the van, walked to the front door, and went inside. When he returned to the van, the informant handed the deputy two rock-like substances. The two then met Sheriff Free and gave the substances and the micro-cassette to him.

The informant, Mr. Crosswhite, corroborated the testimony of both officers. Crosswhite testified that he told appellant that he "needed a forty," and at that point, appellant gave him the two rock-like substances.

At the close of the State's case, appellant's counsel moved for a directed verdict based on the credibility of the testimony provided at trial and the fact that the taped recording of the transaction did not provide evidence of a drug sale. Appellant's counsel renewed the motion at the close of all the evidence. The trial judge denied appellant's motion for directed verdict.

The State contends that appellant's sufficiency argument is not preserved for our review because his motion for directed verdict was not sufficiently specific. We disagree. Appellant's counsel's argument for a directed-verdict motion articulates two points. First, appellant's counsel stated that the basis for the motion was that the testimony was in conflict and that the informant was not a credible witness. Although this argument was preserved for our review, we find that it is

without merit. We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by determining if there is substantial evidence to support the judgment and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Stephenson v. State, 334 Ark. 520, 975 S.W.2d 830 (1998). Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resort to speculation or conjecture. Id. We do not, however, weigh the evidence presented at trial, as that is a matter for the fact-finder; nor will we weigh the credibility of the witnesses. Rabb v. State, 72 Ark. App. 396, 39 S.W.3d 11 (2001).

Appellant's second argument for a directed verdict, that the micro-cassette did not provide any evidence of the drug sale, is not preserved for our review because the contents of the micro-cassette are not included in the abstract. The failure of appellant to abstract critical evidence precludes this court from considering issues concerning it. Rabb v. State, supra (citing Jackson v. State, 316 Ark. 509, 872 S.W.2d 400 (1994)). The record on appeal is confined to what is abstracted. Id. (citing Moncrief v. State, 325 Ark. 173, 925 S.W.2d 777 (1996)). It is the duty of an appellant to abstract such parts of the record as are material to the points argued in his brief. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(g) (2001). Thus, we are precluded from addressing this point due to appellant's failure to include the contents of the micro-cassette recording in his abstract.

Affirmed.

Hart and Vaught, JJ., agree.