How have courts treated evidence of uncharged crimes and acts of misconduct in a criminal case?

This case does not fall within the exception. Although certainly an important part of the prosecution's case, we cannot say that the evidence of uncharged crimes and acts of misconduct were a "dominant" part of the evidence, given that eyewitness testimony figured so prominently in the case. The evidence was also undoubtedly prejudicial, but any evidence which tends to prove guilt is prejudicial to the defendant's case. (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638.) " ' "[P]rejudicial" ' " is not synonymous with " ' "damaging." ' " (Ibid.) The evidence was also more than "minimally relevant." It was directly relevant to the gang enhancement and the special circumstance allegations.

Page 20