In an argument that may well have been lifted from another case, what is the test for admitting "propensity evidence" in a sexual assault case?

^5. In an argument that may well have been lifted from another brief, defendant claims that the admission of "propensity evidence" violated her federal due process and equal protection rights, and that the jury instruction regarding the "propensity evidence" violated her federal due process rights, arguments that she raises solely to preserve them for federal review. Defendant states in her opening brief that the jury instruction required proof only by a preponderance of the evidence that she "committed other domestic violence," and cites cases addressing propensity evidence admissible under sections 1108 and 1109, which were not applicable in this case. (People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903 [admissibility of prior sexual offenses under 1108]; People v. Hoover (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1020 [admissibility of prior domestic violence under 1109].) Indeed, no "propensity evidence" was admitted in this case. The jury was specifically instructed here that evidence of the 2008 incident was not to be used to conclude that defendant was disposed to commit crime.