How have the courts dealt with prior conviction evidence at a sexual assault trial?

the four years prior to the Doe incident and his progressive change in appearance following that incident. Introducing fewer photographs may not have had the same probative value. As the trial court found, the prejudicial effect of the photographs was minimized because the booking information was removed and because of the stipulation, which told the jury that defendant "has no prior sex crimes and no felony convictions" and that defendant's prior police contacts were all for "allegations of misdemeanor crimes of a non-sexual nature." The trial court reasonably determined that the stipulation would preclude the jury from speculating that defendant's criminal history included any serious offenses and thus minimize any prejudicial impact of the photographs. (See People v. Little (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1378 [trial court appropriately dealt with potential prejudice of prior conviction evidence by giving parties "an opportunity to work out a stipulation amongst themselves"].)