What is the effect of admitting evidence of a defendant's prior conviction for assault?

Moreover, the testimony concerning the prior conviction was not cumulative, was certainly not more inflammatory than the charged offense, did not unduly consume time, and did not confuse the jury. (See People v. Lopez, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 715.) Inasmuch as the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence under Evidence Code section 352. (People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 404.)

In any event, admission of the evidence of defendant's prior conviction was not prejudicial, in that it is not reasonably probable defendant would have been acquitted had the evidence been excluded. (Evid. Code, 353, subd. (b); People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 878.)