What is the effect of admitting evidence of an incident in which a defendant admitted possessing methamphetamine manufacturing materials?

For the reasons stated above, we agree with the trial court's assessment that the evidence of the May 10, 2016 incident was highly probative of defendant's intent regarding the charged offense. We also conclude that the May 10, 2016 incident, while serious, was not so inflammatory as to "create a substantial danger of undue prejudice." (Evid. Code, 352.) We observe that while there was evidence that defendant possessed methamphetamine manufacturing materials on May 10, 2016, the evidence of the charged offense included defendant's possession of a significant amount of methamphetamine, which rendered the charged offense serious as well. Moreover, the trial court twice gave the jury a limiting instruction regarding the uncharged offenses evidence, which we presume the jury followed. (People v. Case (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1, 32.)

Finally, defendant contends that the admission of the evidence violated his right to due process under the federal constitution. However, since we have not found that the admission of the uncharged offenses evidence was error under state law, we need not decide "the consequences of that error, including . . . whether the error was so serious as to violate due process." (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 437.)⁷

B. Exclusion of Testimony Based on Witnesses' Invocation of the Privilege Against Self-incrimination