What is the legal test for admitting evidence of an incident that occurred in the same place as a newly charged crime?

because of the similar nature of the crimes, and therefore, the admission of the evidence was clearly "in the interest of justice." (Evid. Code, 1109, subd. (e); People v. Johnson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 520, 537-538 [similarity between 20-year-old crime and newly charged crime was adequate basis for admission notwithstanding Evid. Code, 1109, subd. (e)].)

Likewise, the evidence was not unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352. Although the prior incidents occurred 16 years earlier, the remoteness of the conduct goes to its weight, rather than admissibility, and the similarity between the acts supports its admission. (See People v. Branch (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 274, 284-285.) The evidence was not likely to confuse the jurors, consume undue time, or inflame the jurors' prejudice against defendant. Given the significant relevance of the evidence, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in allowing its admission.

Assuming without suggesting it is true that the evidence should have been excluded, any claimed error was harmless. The erroneous admission of evidence requires reversal only if it is reasonably probable that appellant would have obtained a more favorable result had the evidence been excluded. (Evid. Code, 353, subd. (b); People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 878.) As is evident from our discussion of the facts, the evidence against defendant was substantial, and it is clear the jury accepted some facts as true while appropriately rejecting others. Evidence regarding the 1993 incident was only a small portion of the prosecution's case. We find no reason to conclude that defendant would have received a more favorable result had the testimony regarding the 1993 incident been excluded.