How has the court interpreted other-crimes evidence in a trial where a defendant admitted that he had committed a crime against a witness?

Furthermore, admission of other-crimes evidence did not create a substantial danger of undue prejudice. Defendant's statements were neither extensive nor time consuming. Their contents were not uniquely inflammatory. The charged offenses, in fact, were more likely to have aroused the passion of the jurors against him. The court also issued CALCRIM No. 375, which delineates the purpose of other-crimes evidence.¹³ (See People v. Frazier (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 30, 42 [risk of jury punishing a defendant for an uncharged crime counterbalanced by appropriate instructions]; see also People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 662 ["Jurors are presumed to understand and follow the court's instructions."].) That the jurors convicted defendant on counts 1 and 2 and acquitted him on count 3 affirmatively demonstrated that they carefully examined all the evidence and reached a reasonable verdict.¹⁴

Page 18