THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24

MEMORANDUM DECISION

KELLY, Judge.

¶ 1 Following a jury trial, appellant Anthony Castillo was convicted of second-degree burglary. The trial court imposed a two-year term of probation. On appeal, Castillo argues portions of an expert witness's testimony were hearsay and the trial court erred by admitting them. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Background

¶ 2 We view the facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to upholding the conviction. State v. Abdi, 226 Ariz. 361, ¶ 2, 248 P.3d 209, 211 (App. 2011). In September 2008, a Pima County Sheriff's deputy responded to a report of a residential burglary. A forensic technician collected fingerprints from the residence and a print examiner subsequently determined they matched Castillo's prints. A second print examiner later verified the identification. Castillo was charged and convicted as above, and this appeal followed.

Discussion

¶ 3 Castillo argues the trial court erred by admitting inadmissible hearsay evidence, thereby violating his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. He challenges the fingerprint examiner's testimony that her identification of his fingerprint had been verified by another examiner. We review for an abuse of discretion a court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence. State v. Rutledge, 205 Ariz. 7, ¶ 15, 66 P.3d 50, 53 (2003).1

¶ 4 The fingerprint examiner testified that the process used for fingerprint analysis is called ACE-V, which stands for analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification. She explained that unless all steps are completed, including the independent verification, she cannot issue a report making an identification. The examiner further acknowledged that this process must be followed "each and every time." Additionally, the prints identified by the examiner and the fingerprint card she used for comparison, all of which were admitted into evidence, contain handwritten markings from two different examiners. The examiner testified that these markings indicate an identification has been verified. Given this evidence, the witness's verbal confirmation that her work in this case was verified was essentially superfluous. We therefore can say beyond a reasonable doubt that any alleged error "did not affect or contribute to the verdict" and was harmless. State v. Doerr, 193 Ariz. 56, ¶ 33, 969 P.2d 1168, 1176 (1998). Thus, even assuming, without deciding, that the trial court erred, we will not reverse Castillo's conviction. See State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, ¶ 21, 29 P.3d 271, 276 (2001).

¶ 5 Castillo next argues the trial court erred by denying his objection to the fingerprint examiner's statement that she had "never made an erroneous identification." Although Castillo objected on relevancy and Rule 404(b) grounds, he now argues the statement should have been excluded because it was "improper hearsay."2 But Castillo did not object on this ground in the trial court. "And an objection on one ground does not preserve the issue on another ground." State v. Lopez, 217 Ariz. 433, ¶ 4, 175 P.3d 682, 683 (App. 2008). Consequently, we review only for fundamental, prejudicial error. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶¶ 19-20, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005).

¶ 6 We find no error, fundamental or otherwise. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Ariz. R. Evid. 801(c). The print examiner's statement was made by the declarant while testifying at trial and, therefore it is not hearsay. See id. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by failing to exclude the statement on hearsay grounds.

Disposition

¶ 7 Castillo's conviction and sentence are affirmed.

GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge, and PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge. concurring.