How has the Court considered prior acts evidence in the context of a defendant's claim of self-defense?

The prior acts evidence demonstrated a pattern of defendant controlling Doe through violence. The evidence was admissible because it showed a reason for his behavior and his state of mind at the time of the shooting: anger at losing control over Doe. The evidence logically tended to prove that defendant acted with a motive and negated his claim of self-defense. (See People v. Pertsoni, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 375 ["Evidence of his motive thus was critically important in showing a reason for his criminal behavior and in rebutting his claim of self-defense"].)

Page 10