Opinion ID: 853501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of Sentencing Hearing Evidence

Text: The defendant contends that the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence at the sentencing hearing a statement by a victim from a prior conviction of the defendant. [2] To constitute grounds for reversal, an error in the admission of evidence must be inconsistent with substantial justice. Ind. Trial Rule 61. A reviewing court must disregard any error which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. Id. When, as here, a trial court relies upon aggravating circumstances to enhance the presumptive sentence, it must identify all significant circumstances, state the specific reasons why the circumstance is aggravating or mitigating, and articulate the court's evaluation and balancing of the circumstances. IND.CODE § 35-38-1-3; Bonds v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1002, 1005 (Ind.2000). This requirement insures that only proper matters are considered. Hammons v. State, 493 N.E.2d 1250, 1254 (Ind.1986). In this case, the trial court expansively articulated these factors at sentencing. Record at 619-24. Although it recited the defendant's extensive criminal history, the court did not rely upon or refer to any information contained in the challenged statement from the prior victim. We conclude that the alleged error did not affect the defendant's substantial rights.