How have courts dealt with the issue of erroneously admitted evidence in a criminal case?

To recapitulate, under the applicable circumstances, the erroneously admitted evidence was a significant factor in the prosecution's case and was highlighted and embellished by the prosecutor. (See People v. Dellinger, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 300 [potential for prejudice exacerbated by prosecutor's repeated references to prior crime evidence].) The erroneously admitted evidence also constrained, if not eliminated, the defense's ability to argue the house fire was accidental, not willful and malicious. We are mindful, further, that evidence of prior crimes or bad acts is inherently prejudicial. Such evidence has a "'"highly inflammatory and prejudicial effect" on the trier of fact'" and "'produces an "over-strong tendency to believe the defendant guilty of the charge merely because he is a likely person to do such acts."'" (People v. Holt (1984) 37 Cal.3d

Page 28

436, 450-451; People v. Sam (1969) 71 Cal.2d 194, 206 ["substantial prejudicial effect [is] inherent in evidence of prior offenses" (italics added)].)