What is the relevance of evidence of intimate partner battering in a sexual assault case?

"The relevance of this evidence is based on the possibility that the jurors will doubt that a witness who claims to have been abused has indeed acted in the manner to which he or she testified, and therefore the jurors might unjustifiably develop a negative view of the witness's credibility. [Citation.] Even if the defendant never expressly contests the witness's credibility along these lines, there is nothing preventing the jury from ultimately finding in its deliberations that the witness was not credible, based on misconceptions that could have been dispelled by [intimate partner battering] evidence. Thus, there is no need for the defendant first to bring up the potential inconsistency between a witness's actions and his or her testimony before the prosecution is entitled to attempt to dispel any misperceptions the jurors may hold by introducing [intimate partner battering] evidence, provided, of course, that there is an adequate foundation for a finding that the witness has been affected by [intimate partner battering]. [Citation.]" (People v. Riggs, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 293.)