What is the burden of proof against a defendant for a prior offence?

Factors to be considered in this regard include, "(1) whether the inference of a common design or plan is strong; (2) whether the source of evidence concerning the present offense is independent of and unaffected by information about the uncharged offense; (3) whether the defendant was punished for the prior misconduct; (4) whether the uncharged offense is more inflammatory than the charged offense; and (5) whether the two incidents occurred close in time." (People v. Dancer (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1677, 1690, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Hammon (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1117, 1123; see also 352.)

Knowledge was a vital component of the prosecutor's burden of proof. The prior offenses were wholly independent of the current charges and were not more inflammatory. Furthermore, the trial court gave the jury limiting instructions on the use of the prior offense evidence both prior to the presentation of the evidence, and again when instructing the jury prior to deliberations. Jurors were told they could consider the prior crimes evidence only "for the limited purpose of deciding whether or not, one, the defendant acted with the intent to sell the controlled substance alleged in Counts 1 and 2 in this case[,] or, two, the defendant knew the character and nature of the controlled substance alleged in Count[s] 1 and 2 when he allegedly acted in this case[,] or, three, the defendant had a plan or scheme to commit the offenses alleged in this case. [] In evaluating the evidence, consider the similarity or lack of similarity between the uncharged offenses and the charged offenses. [] Do not consider this evidence for any other purpose. Do not conclude from this evidence that the defendant has a bad character or is disposed to commit crime." We presume the jurors followed the instructions. (People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 253.)

For the reasons stated above, there was no prejudicial error.