How have the facts been interpreted on appeal?

As always, we recite the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment. (See People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) Before we do, we note defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. However, because defendant's identity as the perpetrator was established entirely by circumstantial evidence, and because his sole contention on appeal requires us to determine whether he was prejudiced by the jury's receipt of inadmissible prior bad act evidence he claims allowed the jury to improperly infer he was the perpetrator in this case, we set forth the circumstantial identity evidence in some detail.