history, which included a prior high-speed police pursuit; the risk that defendant posed to the community; and the strong societal interest in making a clear statement that such behavior will not be tolerated and will, in fact, be severely punished. Thus, it is readily apparent from the record and the court’s findings that the sentence was driven by defendant’s recklessness, his risk to public safety, and the need for deterrence, rather than by any impact on the emotions of Sergeant Johnson’s fellow officers. Accordingly, any error in the admission of the officers’ testimony was harmless. See State v. Gibney, 2003 VT 26, ¶ 53, 175 Vt. 180, 825 A.2d 32 (recognizing that we apply harmless error analysis to sentencing error); State v. Bacon, 169 Vt. 268, 273, 733 A.2d 50, 54 (1999) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 12. Finally, defendant contends the court
holding that any error in considering victims standing in the community was harmless where record showed that other valid aggravating factors established an independent basis for the sentencing decision holding any error in admitting eye witness testimony was harmless because it was cumulative to other overwhelming evidence that established defendants guilt holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record holding circuit courts decision to depart from the presumptive sentencing recommendation and impose a prison sentence was reversible error where defendant objected on the basis that the state failed to give notice of aggravating factors that would justify a dispositional departure from the presumptive sentencing recommendation and the trial court failed to state on the record a reason for its departure holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error