Id. at 378, 108 S.W.3d at 625.Citing Robinson , we remanded to the trial court to settle the record in Williams v. State , 362 Ark. 416, 208 S.W.3d 761 (2005), where the court conducted an off-the-record, in-chambers review of a videotaped statement that the defendant had sought to suppress at trial. See alsoGeorge v. State , 356 Ark. 345, 151 S.W.3d 770 (2004) (remanding where suppression hearing was not transcribed on the record).

When the record is missing pages, our custom is to remand to settle the record. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 2011 Ark. 525, 2011 WL 6091362; Hayes v. State, 2013 Ark. 450, 2013 WL 5968936; Williams v. State, 362 Ark. 416, 208 S.W.3d 761 (2005). In my opinion, this procedure better serves judicial economy in this case because it would allow us to review the entire record to determine whether it conclusively shows that Beverage is not entitled to relief, rather than requiring the trial court to hold a hearing on that issue.

Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 4 (2007). We have held that we will strictly construe and apply Admin. Order No. 4. See Williams v. State, 362 Ark. 416, 208 S.W.3d 761 (2005). For that reason, the Order is mandatory and is not discretionary; indeed, we have remanded matters in which a contested issue was not recorded, directed that certain motions must be recorded, and reminded the bench and bar of the requirement of Admin. Order No. 4. See, e.g., Dickinson v. State, 367 Ark. 102, 238 S.W.3d 125 (2006) (underscoring the provisions of Admin. Order No. 4); Williams v. State, supra (holding that it was the circuit court's duty to require that a verbatim record be made of defense counsel's particular challenge to a videotape and of the circuit court's review of it); George v. State, 356 Ark. 345, 151 S.W.3d 770 (2004) (remanding for a hearing recorded verbatim on defendant's pretrial suppression motion); Robinson v. State, 353 Ark. 372, 108 S.W.3d 622 (2003) (requiring that all motions for directed verdict be conducted on the record at the times such motions are mandated); Bradford v. State, 351 Ark. 394, 94 S.W.3d 904 (2003) (emphasizing once more that Admin.

Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 4(a) (2015). See Williams v. State, 362 Ark. 416, 208 S.W.3d 761 (2005) (noting the circuit court's duty to require a verbatim record of a videotaped custodial statement played to the jury). When an audio recording has been played in the proceedings below and the statement is a point on appeal, abstracting is deferred only if the statement is completely incomprehensible.

Hodge v. State, 329 Ark. 57, 945 S.W.2d 384 (1997). See also Williams v. State, 362 Ark. 416, 208 S.W.3d 761 (2005) (noting that it was the trial court's duty to require a verbatim record of the portion of a videotaped custodial statement played to the jury, and ordering the parties to settle the record).

We remand this matter to the trial court for settlement of the record; specifically, the parties are to settle the record regarding the portion of the informant's statement that Wright asserts was discoverable to him, which was played for the circuit court in his new-trial hearing. See Williams v. State, 362 Ark. 416, 208 S.W.3d 761 (2005). The parties are given thirty days from the date of this opinion to complete this task and to file the supplemental record with our court.

We know from Laxton's brief that a court reporter was not present for the proceedings in Drug Court. We are mindful that in Williams v. State, 362 Ark. 416, 208 S.W.3d 761 (2005), the supreme court explicitly stated that the trial court's failure to make a verbatim record of the proceedings violated Administrative Order No. 4, and that practice would not be tolerated. The Williams court stated: