Can a defendant be found guilty of having a propensity to commit acts of domestic violence?

"By reason of section 110[9], trial courts may no longer deem 'propensity' evidence unduly prejudicial per se, but must engage in a careful weighing process under section 352. Rather than admit or exclude every [domestic violence] offense a defendant commits, trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and the availability of less prejudicial alternatives to its outright admission, such as admitting some but not all of the defendant's other [domestic violence] offenses, or excluding irrelevant though inflammatory details surrounding the offense. [Citations.]" (People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 916-917 [discussing Evid. Code, 1108, analogous statute allowing sex offense propensity evidence].)

"Like any ruling under section 352, the trial court's ruling admitting evidence under section 110[9] is subject to review for abuse of discretion. [Citations.]" (People v. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1295 [actually discussing Evid. Code, 1108].) " 'Under the abuse of discretion standard, "a trial court's ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal of the judgment is not required, unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a

Page 9

manifest miscarriage of justice." [Citation.]' [Citations.]" (People v. Lewis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1255, 1286.)

Evidence that defendant had a propensity to commit acts of domestic violence against his spouses was substantially probative. " 'In the determination of probabilities of guilt, evidence of character is relevant. [Citations.]' [Citation.] Indeed, the rationale for excluding such evidence is not that it lacks probative value, but that it is too relevant.' " (People v. Fitch (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 172, 179.) " ' "The principal factor affecting the probative value of an uncharged act is its similarity to the charged offense." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Johnson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 520, 531-532.)