How have the courts treated evidence of an uncharged past in a criminal case?

We reject appellant's claim that, pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, the trial court abused its discretion because evidence of the 2011 prior offense was "highly prejudicial" and "had very little, if any, probative value as to any material issues in the case." The evidence was highly probative in establishing that (1) appellant had the specific intent that his statements to brother be taken as a threat, and (2) the statements reasonably caused brother to be in a state of sustained fear. ( 422, subd. (a).) "The testimony describing [appellant's] uncharged acts . . . was no stronger and no more inflammatory than the testimony concerning the charged offense[]. This circumstance decreased the potential for prejudice, because it was unlikely that the jury disbelieved [brother's statements to the police] regarding the charged offense[] but nevertheless convicted [appellant] on the strength of [the] testimony . . . regarding the uncharged offense[], or that the jury's passions were inflamed by the evidence of [appellant's] uncharged offense[]." (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 405.)