How have the courts treated evidence of prior convictions of a defendant in a sexual assault case?

The probative value of the evidence of defendant's prior convictions was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect or probability of wasting time. The evidence was highly relevant to whether defendant harbored the necessary criminal intent. That fact does not render it unduly prejudicial. " 'The "prejudice" referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues. In applying [Evidence Code] section 352, "prejudicial" is not synonymous with "damaging." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638.) Here, the 2012 and 2014 priors were not remote, they did not involve worse facts than that of the charged crimes, they did not consume a large amount of time, and the jury was instructed

Page 9