What is the burden of proving a defendant's intent and knowledge in the context of a charge of possession of a Class A drug?

prosecution must still carry the burden on this issue. [] In order to prove knowledge of the character of the narcotic, the prosecution, according to the decisions, may introduce evidence of crimes of a similar nature." (People v. Horn (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 68, 74-75; accord, People v. Ellers (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 943, 953 [prior convictions for same substance "tended to prove knowledge of the narcotic nature of the heroin" the defendant had sold in the charged offense and was "probative of his intent to sell it"]; People v. Thornton (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 44, 49-50 [same].)

We find no fault in the court's decision to admit the 2010 conviction under Evidence Code section 1101 on the issue of defendant's intent and knowledge. Nor do we find fault in the court's determination that the prejudicial value of the evidence did not outweigh its probative value under section 352. "The word 'prejudicial' is not synonymous with 'damaging.' [Citation.] Rather, evidence is unduly prejudicial under section 352 only if it ' " 'uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and . . . has very little effect on the issues' " ' [citation], or if it invites the jury to prejudge ' " 'a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors' " ' [citation]." (People v. Johnson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 520, 534.)