Does the court abuse its power to admit evidence of a prior lewd act against L.G.A.A defendant as propensity evidence?

Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of defendant's prior lewd act against L. as propensity evidence under section 1108. For similar reasons, defendant's due process rights were not violated. (See People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1035 ["Application of the ordinary rules of evidence generally does not impermissibly infringe on a capital defendant's constitutional rights"].)

Further, because the jury was permitted to use the evidence as propensity evidence, we need not consider whether the jury was precluded from considering the same evidence for purposes of determining defendant's intent and his common scheme or plan. Indeed, admission under section 1101 still bars the jury from considering the evidence as propensity evidence. (See People v. Hendrix (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 216, 248.) Here, the jury was permitted to use the evidence as propensity evidence, thus any prejudice resulting from an alleged error would be harmless. (See ibid.)