What is the test for admissible evidence in a sexual assault case?

As the trial court noted, the evidence was also admissible to establish motive. Thus, the probative value was enhanced because the evidence was admissible to establish this additional material fact. Because the prior conduct evidence related to the victim (not just to her stepsister), it was admissible to establish motive because such conduct evinced a sexual desire focused on the victim.¹³ Prior conduct of a sexual nature toward the same victim is evidence of motive to commit the charged offenses. Defendant was not entitled to have the jury determine his guilt or innocence based on a "false presentation" of his past conduct toward the victim. (See People v. Fruits (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 188, 204 [prior threats and acts of violence toward the victim evincing antagonism and enmity toward the victim is evidence of motive for committing the charged threats and acts of violence as to the same victim].)

As for prejudice, " ' "[t]he prejudice which exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence. '[A]ll evidence which tends to prove guilt is prejudicial or damaging to the defendant's case. The stronger the evidence, the more it is "prejudicial." The "prejudice" referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues.' " ' " (People v. Holford (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 155, 167.) Also, "[e]vidence is not inadmissible under section 352 unless the probative value is 'substantially' outweighed by the probability of a 'substantial danger' of undue prejudice or other statutory counterweights. Our high court has emphasized the word 'substantial' in section 352. (People v. Tran (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1040, 1047 [126 Cal.Rptr.3d 65, 253 P.3d 239] ['But Evidence Code section 352 requires the exclusion of evidence only when its probative value is substantially

Page 31