How has the court dealt with the admission of propensity evidence in a criminal case?

Furthermore, any potential for juror confusion created by admission of the propensity evidence was offset by the court's instructions on the elements of the charged offenses, reasonable doubt, and the proper use of propensity evidence. (See People v. Frazier (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 30, 42 [risk of juror confusion may increase when evidence of uncharged offenses is admitted but the risk is counterbalanced by appropriate instructions]; see also CALCRIM No. 1191.) The jury was instructed on a unanimity requirement in the context of generic testimony as well. (See CALCRIM No. 3501.) In addition, the prosecutor's closing argument clearly and effectively pinpointed the act or acts that were encompassed by each count. Nor did presentation of the propensity

Page 11