Promoting Obscene Material Case In Arkansas
Appellants X were charged with promoting obscene material after police confiscated thirty-eight videotapes from their business during the execution of a search warrant.
Appellants moved to suppress the tapes, alleging that the State exceeded "the scope of their request" for a search warrant because the tapes, although graphic, did not contain obscene material.
The trial court denied appellants' motion to suppress, and appellants entered pleas of no contest after allegedly preserving, pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b), their rights to appeal the denial of their motion to suppress.
Appellants argue on appeal that the trial court erred by denying their motion to suppress the thirty-eight tapes seized from their business during the execution of the search warrant.
We dismiss the appeal, however, because we are unable to determine from the abstract whether this case is properly before us.
appellants failed to abstract the notice of appeal, the search warrant, the affidavit in support of the search warrant, and the testimony from the suppression hearing.
If this case were properly before us, given the appellants' failure to abstract these crucial documents and court proceedings, we would affirm for failure to provide an adequate abstract. See Johnson v. State, 303 Ark. 12, 792 S.W.2d 863 (1990).