What is the state's burden of proving a defendant's propensity to commit a crime?

Defendant contends the erroneous admission of the propensity evidence diluted the state's burden. Defendant thus contends we should review the error under the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23-24. (See People v. Hoze (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 949, 954 ["If passions are aroused, the jury may convict simply because the defendant is a bad [person], not because he [or she] is proven guilty."].) Even were we to apply that standard, for the reasons discussed above, we would find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Page 11