Does the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of an uncharged offense?

The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of the uncharged offense under Evidence Code section 352. "Evidence Code section 352 provides that a court 'in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.' . . . 'Prejudice for purposes of Evidence Code section 352 means evidence that tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant with very little effect on issues, not evidence that is probative of a defendant's guilt.' [Citation.]" (People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 133.) Here, the evidence of the uncharged offense was probative on the issue of intent. The similarity between the uncharged offense and the charged offense tended to show defendant had the intent to sell methamphetamine. The probative value of the evidence of the uncharged offense was

Page 6

enhanced because it came from a source independent of the evidence of the charged offense. This is "because the risk that the witness's account was influenced by knowledge of the charged offense is thereby eliminated." (People v. Tran (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1040, 1047 (Tran).)