When will a defendant's argument that the trial court erred because it failed to consider the prejudicial effect of prior crime evidence?

Defendant contends the trial court erred because it failed to weigh the prejudicial effect of the prior offense evidence against the probative value of the evidence. During the discussion about admitting the evidence, the trial court asked the attorneys if they had read People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th 380, because it contained an "[e]ighteen-page explanation of [Evidence Code section] 1101 and how all of it plays together by [the] California Supreme Court." Thus, the trial court was familiar with the case law related to prior crimes evidence. Nevertheless, the fact is that the record is silent about the trial court's views on the prejudicial effect of the prior offense evidence. We do not assume there is an error when the record is silent; rather, we presume the trial court was aware of and followed the applicable law. (People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1229.) Thus, we find defendant's argument to be unpersuasive, because we must presume the trial court followed the law.