What is the test for admitting evidence of indecent exposure under section 1108 of the California Criminal Code?

But, as the Attorney General points out, "Section 1108 provides the trier of fact in a sex offense case the opportunity to learn of defendant's possible disposition to commit sex crimes." (People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 915.) This evidence was highly relevant here in light of the witness's inability to see defendant's penis; she observed him making hand movements indicative of masturbation. His history of earlier convictions for indecent exposure lent credence to the contention he engaged in the same conduct in this instance. We cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in ruling the probative value of this evidence outweighed its potential prejudice.

The five remaining instances of prior misconduct (the "peeking" offenses) were admitted under section 1101(b). This subdivision provides in part "[n]othing in this section prohibits the admission of evidence that a person committed a crime, civil wrong, or other act when relevant to prove some fact (such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident . . .)." Again, we review admission of evidence under this subdivision for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 667-668.)

Section 1101(b) permits evidence of prior misconduct to show defendant acting under a "common scheme or plan." (People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153, 215.) The prior conduct provides evidence explaining defendant's presence in the neighbor's yard. It demonstrates a common scheme or plan to invade other people's properties to engage in his sexual misconduct. The court did not err in admitting this evidence.

3. Sufficient evidence supports defendant's conviction of indecent exposure.