Rule 101(c) makes it clear that ... the proceedings in which the rules of evidence do not apply involve those where evidence is presented to a trial judge alone without the intervention of a jury”). A defendant would clearly approach a child hearsay hearing differently than he would a trial as far as the making of objections and the scope of his own questioning. Some evidence may be received for purposes of determining the reliability of the hearsay statements that would not be admissible in a fact-finding hearing. We agree with L.H. that although incorporating testimony and evidence from a proceeding with greater procedural protections into a proceeding with lesser protections may be appropriate in certain circumstances, see Strowmatt v. State, 686 N.E.2d 154, 159 (Ind.Cd.App.1997) (<HOLDING>), doing the opposite is not. In Arms, we noted
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court holding that defendant was not deprived of any procedural rights or prejudiced by trial court hearing the evidence at defendants child molesting trial as evidence in the states petition to revoke defendants probation holding that evidence of a defendants invocation of the right to remain silent ordinarily is not admissible at the defendants criminal trial holding that the trial court properly added a party defendant to conform to the evidence presented at the trial