How have the courts treated prior conviction evidence in a sexual assault case?

Moreover, the court's instructions to the jury on the limited use of the prior conviction evidence, both at the time it was introduced and when the trial concluded, eliminated any danger "of confusing the issues[] or of misleading the jury." ( 352.) We presume the jury "followed these instructions." (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 107.)

The corpus delicti rule requires the prosecution to establish an injury or loss was caused by a criminal act independently from a defendant's statement or admission. (People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 301.) Defendant argues the prosecutor failed to adequately establish the corpus delicti of the 2005 conviction notwithstanding the documentary and testimonial evidence because there was "[n]o live testimony . . . showing that [he] did in fact enter [the victim's] home in 2005."