Can a defendant's criminal history be considered prejudicial or prejudicial under section 1108 of the California Evidence Code?

in concluding otherwise. Evidence of previous criminal history inevitably has some prejudicial effect. But under section 1108, this circumstance alone is no reason to exclude it. "[S]ection 1108 affects the practical operation of [Evidence Code] section 352 balancing ' "because admission and consideration of evidence of other sexual offenses to show character or disposition would be no longer treated as intrinsically prejudicial or impermissible. Hence, evidence offered under [section] 1108 could not be excluded on the basis of [section] 352 unless 'the probability that its admission will . . . create substantial danger of undue prejudice' . . . substantially outweighed its probative value concerning the defendant's disposition to commit the sexual offense or offenses with which he is charged and other matters relevant to the determination of the charge. As with other forms of relevant evidence that are not subject to any exclusionary principle, the presumption will be in favor of admission.'" ' (Historical Note, 29B pt. 3, West's Ann. Evid. Code [(1998 pocket supp.)] foll. 1108, p. 31.)" (People v. Soto (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 966, 984, italics added.)