Opinion ID: 853424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The DOC Documents

Text: Games contends the court wrongly permitted the prosecution to offer his Department of Correction disciplinary record as rebuttal evidence. (Appellant's Br. at 32-37.) During Games' sentencing presentation on May 18, 1999, he called Marie Donnelly, the attorney for his post-conviction hearing. She portrayed Games as a model prisoner. (R. at 733-35.) On June 11 while the sentence was still under advisement, the prosecution filed a motion to reopen presentation of sentencing evidence in order to tender Games' DOC record. This was allowed over Games' objection, though the trial court offered Games the opportunity for additional time to respond. Games argues at some length that Donnelly's testimony did not open the door so as to warrant a further presentation of evidence by the State. (Appellant's Br. at 32-37.) A trial court has considerable latitude to fashion the order of things in a sentencing proceeding. Games raised the issue of his prison conduct, and the court had the discretion to afford the State a chance to provide further evidence about that topic. Games concedes that his prison conduct record was relevant to the sentencing hearing, [2] (Appellant's Br. at 32), but says the court afforded it undue weight in light of the fact that the records were hearsay, ( Id. at 41-44). The records were brought in under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, Ind. Evidence R. 803(6), [3] and in any event a trial court may consider hearsay in a sentencing proceeding. Lasley v. State, 510 N.E.2d 1340 (Ind.1987). The trial court gave Games the opportunity to contest the accuracy of these records, but he has not demonstrated any particular errors in them, either at trial or on appeal. Instead, Games argues generically that they may not be reliable. This is not enough.