What is the test for abuse of discretion in allowing evidence of common design or plan in a sexual assault case?

Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the evidence as relevant to common design or plan. (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 23 [evidentiary ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion].) The People respond the ruling was proper, and the evidence was alternatively admissible on other grounds of intent, opportunity, or motive.

Assuming for the sake of argument that defendant's prior contacts with the dogs presented an Evidence Code section 1101 issue and further assuming the evidence should have been excluded, any error was clearly harmless, because the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the sexual assault charge, which was the only charge to which the evidence related. (People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 842 [standard for Evidence Code section 1101 error is whether it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result absent the evidence].)

Page 10