What is the effect of instructing the jury on section 1101(b) of the California Evidence Code?

admitted under section 1109, and appellant does not challenge that ruling. Accordingly, any error in instructing the jury on section 1101(b) was harmless. (See People v. Soto (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 966, 992 [where evidence was properly admitted under Evidence Code sections 1108 and 352, the court "need not reach" contention that evidence was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1101].) Although the instruction on section 1109 referred to the assault count but not the charge of first degree burglary, the evidence of appellant's uncharged acts of domestic violence was admissible to prove he committed both crimes. (People v. James (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 478, 482-484.) Because the evidence was admissible to prove that appellant actually committed both charged crimes, any possibility that the jury also considered the evidence for one of the more limited purposes set forth in section 1101(b) is harmless under any standard of review.