What is the probative value of an uncharged crime?

probative value. (See, e.g., People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 405 [12-year gap did not "significantly lessen the probative value" of the uncharged crime].) Weighed against this high level of probative value is the inevitable prejudice flowing from the admission of prior crimes evidence. However, we cannot conclude the nature of the uncharged crimes was "more inflammatory than the charged offenses." (People v. Branch, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 283.) Indeed, we conclude the very dissimilarity defendant uses to argue diminished probative value, i.e., the fact the victims in the uncharged offenses were adults, renders the charged offenses more inflammatory in nature. At the very least, the prejudice flowing from these uncharged crimes does not substantially outweigh that evidence's significant probative value.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion under section 352 in allowing admission of the challenged uncharged crimes evidence.⁵ Having so concluded, "we must also reject defendant's argument that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial. ' "The admission of relevant evidence will not offend due process unless the evidence is so prejudicial as to render the defendant's trial fundamentally unfair." ' [Citations.]" (People v. Holford, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 180.) As in People v. Branch, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 274, "it is unlikely that the jury would have been so prejudiced against [defendant] as a consequence of [the uncharged offenses] that he was denied a fair trial." (Id. at pp. 283-284.)

Page 13