Is a prior burglary prior to the crime admissible?

4 This analysis is consistent with People v. Holt, supra, 37 Cal.3d 436, 208 Cal.Rptr. 547, 690 P.2d 1207. In Holt the prosecution made no showing that a prior burglary was theft related, and the trial court assumed that such priors "would normally be admissible." (Id., at p. 454, 208 Cal.Rptr. 547, 690 P.2d 1207.) The substance of the error in Holt was the trial court's routine assumption that the burglary priors were admissible without any balancing of their probative value or prejudicial impact. (Ibid.)