In a case involving charges of stalking, making criminal threats, and other offenses, the court did not err in permitting the victim to testify that she was aware of the defendant’s previous bank robbery conviction. The testimony was relevant to establish the reasonableness of her fearful state of mind, and the jury was properly instructed that it could consider the evidence for only that purpose. The court also declined to remand for resentencing, holding that Blakely v. Washington (2004) 124 S.Ct. 2531 does not apply to a court’s decision to impose consecutive terms.