How have the courts treated evidence under section 1101(b) in a sexual assault case?

Finally, defendant contends the court should not have admitted the evidence under section 1101(b) on the issues of intent or belief in consent because the evidence was cumulative on these issues. In support, he cites People v. Balcom, supra, 7 Cal.4th 414, where the court held prior offense evidence was merely cumulative (and hence more prejudicial than probative) because the victim's testimony, if believed, that the defendant held a gun to her head provided compelling evidence of the defendant's intent during sexual intercourse. (Id. at pp. 422-423.) Defendant posits that, likewise here, the victim's testimony, if believed, provided compelling evidence of his intent and absence of belief

Page 12