jurors from their main inquiry in California

2026In applying [Evidence Code] section 352, “prejudicial” is not synonymous with “damaging.”’” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 320 ; People v. Barrett (2025) 17 Cal.5th 897 , 954-955 (Barrett).) In analyzing whether to admit evidence of prior sex offenses or prior acts of domestic violence, “the trial court’s determination should be guided by such factors as the ‘nature, relevance, and possible remoteness’ of the evidence, ‘the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged

2026(People v. Villatoro (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1152, 1160, 1164, 1166-1167 .) Nevertheless, uncharged sexual offense evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time or create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. (§§ 352, 1108, subd. (a).) In evaluating whether the probative value of the uncharged offense evidence outweighs any prejudice from its admission, a trial court must “consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remot

2024The admissibility of such evidence ‘ “is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge who is in the best position to evaluate the evidence.” ’ (Id. at pp. 917–918.) [The Supreme Court has] instructed that the trial court’s determination should be guided by such factors as the ‘nature, relevance, and possible remoteness’ of the evidence, ‘the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in

2024(See, e.g., People v. Loy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 46, 61 [courts should consider such factors as the remoteness of the evidence; the degree of certainty of its commission; the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry; the similarity of the uncharged acts to the charged offenses; the likely prejudicial impact of the evidence on the jurors; the additional burden of defending against the uncharged offense; and less prejudicial alternatives such as exclusion of inflammatory details].) Boswell argues, without any supporting authority, that the evidence was of

2026(People v. Villatoro (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1152, 1160, 1164, 1166-1167 .) Nevertheless, uncharged sexual offense evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time or create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. (§§ 352, 1108, subd. (a).) In evaluating whether the probative value of the uncharged offense evidence outweighs any prejudice from its admission, a trial court must “consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remot

2015(Villatoro, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 1163 .) A trial court must “consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and the availability of less prejudicial alternatives to its outright admission, such as admitting some but not all of the defendant’s other sex offenses, or excluding i

2025Factors regarding admissibility In weighing admissibility pursuant to sections 1108 and 352, five “particularly significant” factors are: “(1) whether the propensity evidence has probative value, e.g., whether the uncharged conduct is similar enough to the charged behavior to tend to show defendant did in fact commit the charged offense; (2) whether the propensity evidence is stronger and more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant’s charged acts; (3) whether the uncharged conduct is remote or stale; (4) whether the propensity evidence is likely to confuse or distract the jurors from thei

2024In determining whether to admit propensity evidence under Evidence Code section 1108, a trial court weighs several factors: “(1) whether the propensity evidence has probative value, e.g., whether the uncharged conduct is similar enough to the charged behavior to tend to show the defendant did in fact commit the charged offense; (2) whether the propensity evidence is stronger and more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant’s charged acts; (3) whether the uncharged conduct is remote or stale; (4) whether the propensity evidence is likely to confuse or distract the jurors from their main inq

2023The factors to be considered in the Evidence Code section 1108 analysis under Evidence Code section 352 include: “(1) whether the propensity evidence has probative value, e.g., whether the uncharged conduct is similar enough to the charged behavior to tend to show the defendant did in fact commit the charged offense; (2) whether the propensity evidence is stronger and more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant’s charged acts; (3) whether the uncharged conduct is remote or stale; (4) whether the propensity evidence is likely to confuse or distract the jurors from their main inquiry, e.g.,

2022Code, § 1108, subd. (a).) . . . [Evidence Code section 1108’s] enactment created a statutory exception to the rule against the use of propensity evidence, allowing admission of evidence of other sexual offenses in cases charging such conduct to prove the defendant’s disposition to commit the charged offense. [Citation.]” (People v. Dejourney (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1091, 1103-1104 (Dejourney).) When weighing the prejudice of such Evidence Code section 1108 evidence against its probative value under Evidence Code section 352, “trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and

2025Code, § 352.) In determining whether Evidence Code section 1109 propensity evidence of another offense is admissible, a court engages in “a careful weighing process under section 352” by “consider[ing] such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely 14 prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and the availability of less prejudic

2023The factors to be considered in the Evidence Code section 1108 analysis under Evidence Code section 352 include: “(1) whether the propensity evidence has probative value, e.g., whether the uncharged conduct is similar enough to the charged behavior to tend to show the defendant did in fact commit the charged offense; (2) whether the propensity evidence is stronger and more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant’s charged acts; (3) whether the uncharged conduct is remote or stale; (4) whether the propensity evidence is likely to confuse or distract the jurors from their main inquiry, e.g.,

2025(People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 404 (Ewoldt).) When engaging in a “careful weighing process under [Evidence Code ]section 352 . . . trial judges must consider such factors as [the evidence’s] nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and the availability of less prejudicial alternatives to its o

2022(People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 404 (Ewoldt).) When engaging in a “careful weighing process under section 352 . . . trial judges must consider such factors as [the evidence’s] nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against 6 the uncharged offense, and the availability of less prejudicial alternatives to its outright admiss

2016(Id. at p. 917.) The weighing process is "entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge who is in the best position to evaluate the evidence." (People v. Fitch (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 172, 183 (Fitch).) In evaluating propensity evidence under Evidence Code section 352, trial judges "must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden

2010Pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108, 4 evidence of such additional incidents of sexual misconduct is admissible to demonstrate propensity, unless the evidence is determined to be unduly prejudicial or otherwise objectionable under Evidence Code section 352. 5 As our Supreme Court explained in People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 847 , 986 P.2d 182 ], Evidence Code section 1108 requires the court to examine the evidence of other incidents of sexual misconduct, and “consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its com

2023The factors to be considered in the Evidence Code section 1108 analysis under Evidence Code section 352 include: “(1) whether the propensity evidence has probative value, e.g., whether the uncharged conduct is similar enough to the charged behavior to tend to show the defendant did in fact commit the charged offense; (2) whether the propensity evidence is stronger and more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant’s charged acts; (3) whether the uncharged conduct is remote or stale; (4) whether the propensity evidence is likely to confuse or distract the jurors from their main inquiry, e.g.,

2013Rather than admit or exclude every sex offense a defendant commits, trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and the availability of less prejudicial alternatives to its outright admission, such as admitting some but not all of the defendant‘s other sex of

2022(See People v. Johnson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 520, 531 (Johnson) [in assessing the probative value of uncharged crimes act evidence for purposes of §§ 1108 and 1109, “the principal consideration [is] the similarity of the uncharged act to the charged offense”]; (Hollie, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 1274 [“ ‘The principal factor affecting the probative value of an uncharged act [under sections 1108, 1109, and 352] is its similarity to the charged offense.’ ”]; Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 917 [for purposes of § 1108, the probative value of other sex crimes evidence depends on the relative

2021(See People v. Johnson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 520, 531 (Johnson) [in assessing the probative value of uncharged crimes act evidence for purposes of §§ 1108 and 1109, “the principal consideration [is] the similarity of the uncharged act to the charged offense”]; (Hollie, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 1274 [“ ‘The principal factor affecting the probative value of an uncharged act [under sections 1108, 1109, and 352] is its similarity to the charged offense.’ ”]; Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 917 [for purposes of § 1108, the probative value of other sex crimes evidence depends on the relative

2011“A careful weighing of prejudice against probative value under [Evidence Code section 352] is essential to protect a defendant’s due process right to a fundamentally fair trial. [Citations.]” (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1314 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ] (Jennings).) As our Supreme Court stated in Falsetta , in balancing such Evidence Code section 1108 evidence under Evidence Code section 352, “trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distract

2011“A careful weighing of prejudice against probative value under [Evidence Code section 352] is essential to protect a defendant’s due process right to a fundamentally fair trial. [Citations.]” (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1314 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ] (Jennings).) As our Supreme Court stated in Falsetta , in balancing such Evidence Code section 1108 evidence under Evidence Code section 352, “trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distract

2026It follows that if evidence satisfies the requirements of section 1108, including that it is not inadmissible under section 352, then the admission of that 8 evidence does not violate section 1101.” (Daveggio, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 823 .) Daveggio cautions trial courts to weigh carefully evidence of prior sexual offenses against the prejudice flowing from admission of such evidence, and sets forth the relevant factors governing that weighing process: “ ‘Rather than admit or exclude every sex offense a defendant commits, trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and pos

2026It follows that if evidence satisfies the requirements of section 1108, including that it is not inadmissible under section 352, then the admission of that 8 evidence does not violate section 1101.” (Daveggio, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 823 .) Daveggio cautions trial courts to weigh carefully evidence of prior sexual offenses against the prejudice flowing from admission of such evidence, and sets forth the relevant factors governing that weighing process: “ ‘Rather than admit or exclude every sex offense a defendant commits, trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and pos

2026In applying [Evidence Code] section 352, “prejudicial” is not synonymous with “damaging.”’” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 320 ; People v. Barrett (2025) 17 Cal.5th 897 , 954-955 (Barrett).) In analyzing whether to admit evidence of prior sex offenses or prior acts of domestic violence, “the trial court’s determination should be guided by such factors as the ‘nature, relevance, and possible remoteness’ of the evidence, ‘the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged

2026In applying section 352, “prejudicial” is not synonymous with “damaging.”’” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 320 .) In determining whether to admit evidence of prior conduct under section 1109, the trial court “should be guided by such factors as the ‘nature, relevance, and possible remoteness’ of the evidence, ‘the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the unch

2024It is enough the charged and uncharged offenses are sex offenses as defined in [Evidence Code] section 1108.”’” (Cordova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 133 .) Any dissimilarities between the acts go to their weight, not their admissibility.

2019Rather than admit or exclude every sex offense a defendant commits, trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to 9 the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and the availability of less prejudicial alternatives to its outright admission, such as admitting some but not all of the defendant’s other sex

2026The stronger the evidence, the more it is “prejudicial.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. Hollie (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1276-1277 .) In deciding whether to admit evidence of a prior sexual offense under section 1108, “trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and t

2026The stronger the evidence, the more it is “prejudicial.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. Hollie (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1276-1277 .) In deciding whether to admit evidence of a prior sexual offense under section 1108, “trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and t

2026As previously noted, evidence admissible pursuant to sections 1101 and 1109 is still subject to a determination that, “pursuant to section 352, whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the probability the evidence will consume an undue amount of time or create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury.” (People v. Brown, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1233 .) “In conducting the careful weighing process to determine whether propensity evidence is admissible under section 352, trial courts ‘must consider such factors as i

2026As previously noted, evidence admissible pursuant to sections 1101 and 1109 is still subject to a determination that, “pursuant to section 352, whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the probability the evidence will consume an undue amount of time or create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury.” (People v. Brown, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1233 .) “In conducting the careful weighing process to determine whether propensity evidence is admissible under section 352, trial courts ‘must consider such factors as i

2025Code, § 352.) In determining whether Evidence Code section 1109 propensity evidence of another offense is admissible, a court engages in “a careful weighing process under section 352” by “consider[ing] such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely 14 prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and the availability of less prejudic

2025Code, § 352.) The prejudice “referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues.” (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638 .) To determine prejudice, trial courts “must consider such factors as [the uncharged offense’s] nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry.” (People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 917 .) G

2022These factors are[:] (1) whether the propensity evidence has 72 probative value, e.g., whether the uncharged conduct is similar enough to the charged behavior to tend to show the defendant did in fact commit the charged offense; (2) whether the propensity evidence is stronger and more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant’s charged acts; (3) whether the uncharged conduct is remote or stale; (4) whether the propensity evidence is likely to confuse or distract the jurors from their main inquiry, e.g., whether the jury might be tempted to punish the defendant for his uncharged, unpunished c

2021These factors are[:] (1) whether the propensity evidence has 72 probative value, e.g., whether the uncharged conduct is similar enough to the charged behavior to tend to show the defendant did in fact commit the charged offense; (2) whether the propensity evidence is stronger and more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant’s charged acts; (3) whether the uncharged conduct is remote or stale; (4) whether the propensity evidence is likely to confuse or distract the jurors from their main inquiry, e.g., whether the jury might be tempted to punish the defendant for his uncharged, unpunished c

2022(Id at p. 824.) In determining the admissibility under Evidence Code section 352 of evidence of past sexual offenses offered under Evidence Code section 1108, the court must "undertake[] a careful and specialized inquiry to determine whether the danger of undue prejudice from the propensity evidence substantially outweighs its probative value." (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 41 .) Factors to be considered by the court include the "'nature, relevance, and possible remoteness [of the evidence], the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or di

2022(People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 42 .) Five factors are “particularly significant” in applying a section 352 balancing test to section 1108 evidence: “(1) whether the propensity evidence has probative value, e.g., whether the uncharged conduct is similar enough to the charged behavior to tend to show defendant did in fact commit the charged offense; (2) whether the propensity evidence is stronger and more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant’s charged acts; (3) whether the uncharged conduct is remote or stale; (4) whether the propensity evidence is likely to confuse or distract

2026(People v. Robinson (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1345 , 1351.) We will not reverse the trial court’s decision “‘except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124 , overruled on another ground in People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831 , 848.) The People argue that Gutierrez forfeited any objection to admission of Doe’s testimony that Gutierrez punched her, because he did not object at trial.

2023Code, § 6320, subd. (c).) 29 The trial court “ ‘must engage in a careful weighing process under section 352’ when admitting propensity evidence.” ( Baker, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p.1098.) Thus, “ ‘trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and the availability

2023The factors to be considered in the Evidence Code section 1108 analysis under Evidence Code section 352 include: “(1) whether the propensity evidence has probative value, e.g., whether the uncharged conduct is similar enough to the charged behavior to tend to show the defendant did in fact commit the charged offense; (2) whether the propensity evidence is stronger and more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant’s charged acts; (3) whether the uncharged conduct is remote or stale; (4) whether the propensity evidence is likely to confuse or distract the jurors from their main inquiry, e.g.,

2023The factors to be considered in the Evidence Code section 1108 analysis under Evidence Code section 352 include: “(1) whether the propensity evidence has probative value, e.g., whether the uncharged conduct is similar enough to the charged behavior to tend to show the defendant did in fact commit the charged offense; (2) whether the propensity evidence is stronger and more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant’s charged acts; (3) whether the uncharged conduct is remote or stale; (4) whether the propensity evidence is likely to confuse or distract the jurors from their main inquiry, e.g.,

2023The factors to be considered in the Evidence Code section 1108 analysis under Evidence Code section 352 include: “(1) whether the propensity evidence has probative value, e.g., whether the uncharged conduct is similar enough to the charged behavior to tend to show the defendant did in fact commit the charged offense; (2) whether the propensity evidence is stronger and more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant’s charged acts; (3) whether the uncharged conduct is remote or stale; (4) whether the propensity evidence is likely to confuse or distract the jurors from their main inquiry, e.g.,

2015(People v. Wesson (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 959, 969 .) “A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling ‘falls outside the bounds of reason.’” (Id., quoting People v. DeSantis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1198, 1226 .) Factors to consider in determining whether to admit evidence of other sex offenses include the “nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant i

2022Code, § 1108, subd. (a).) . . . [Evidence Code section 1108’s] enactment created a statutory exception to the rule against the use of propensity evidence, allowing admission of evidence of other sexual offenses in cases charging such conduct to prove the defendant’s disposition to commit the charged offense. [Citation.]” (People v. Dejourney (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1091, 1103-1104 (Dejourney).) When weighing the prejudice of such Evidence Code section 1108 evidence against its probative value under Evidence Code section 352, “trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and

2022Code, § 1108, subd. (a).) . . . [Evidence Code section 1108’s] enactment created a statutory exception to the rule against the use of propensity evidence, allowing admission of evidence of other sexual offenses in cases charging such conduct to prove the defendant’s disposition to commit the charged offense. [Citation.]” (People v. Dejourney (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1091, 1103-1104 (Dejourney).) When weighing the prejudice of such Evidence Code section 1108 evidence against its probative value under Evidence Code section 352, “trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and

2025Rather than admit or exclude every sex offense a defendant commits, trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and the availability of less prejudicial alternatives to its outright admission, such as admitting some but not all of the defendant’s other sex of

2024When deciding whether to admit evidence of prior sex offenses, domestic violence, or other bad acts under section 352, “trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness[;] the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry[;] its similarity to the charged offense[;] its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors[;] the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense[;] and the availability of less prejudicial alternatives to its outright admission, such