What is the preponderance standard for determining the admissibility of evidence in a sexual assault case?

[Citations.]" (People v. Tafoya (2007) 42 Cal.4th 147, 165; see 403, subd. (a)(1).)²² The preponderance standard is met if there is "sufficient evidence to enable a reasonable jury to conclude that it is more probable that the fact exists than that it does not. [Citations.]" (People v. Herrera (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 46, 61.) The proponent of the evidence "has the burden of establishing all preliminary facts pertinent to determining the relevancy of that evidence. [Citation.] A ruling on the admissibility of evidence implies whatever finding of fact is prerequisite thereto .... [Citation.]" (People v. Kaurish (1990) 52 Cal.3d 648, 693.) "The court should exclude the proffered evidence only if the 'showing of preliminary facts is too weak to support a favorable determination by the jury.' [Citations.]" (People v. Lucas, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 466.)

In the present case, several preliminary facts had to be sufficiently established to make the proffered evidence relevant. The first two were the truth of the prior uncharged act and defendant's connection to it. (See People v. Garelick (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1115.) As the trial court observed, these facts were sufficiently established by defendant's kidnapping conviction.