What is the test for admitting evidence of uncharged sexual offenses for abuse of children?

often presents conflicting versions of the event and requires the trier of fact to make difficult credibility determinations. Section 1108 provides the trier of fact in a sex offense case the opportunity to learn of the defendant's possible disposition to commit sex crimes." (People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 915.)

By its terms, section 1108 requires the court to conduct a section 352 analysis before admitting evidence of uncharged sexual offenses. The court should consider: "(1) whether the propensity evidence has probative value, e.g., whether the uncharged conduct is similar enough to the charged behavior to tend to show the defendant did in fact commit the charged offense; (2) whether the propensity evidence is stronger and more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant's charged acts; (3) whether the uncharged conduct is remote or stale; (4) whether the propensity evidence is likely to confuse or distract the jurors from their main inquiry, e.g., whether the jury might be tempted to punish the defendant for his uncharged, unpunished conduct; and (5) whether admission of the propensity evidence will require an undue consumption of time. [Citation.] A trial court balances this first factor, i.e., the propensity evidence's probative value, against the evidence's prejudicial and time-consuming effects, as measured by the second through fifth factors." (People v. Nguyen (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1117.)

We review the court's ruling whether to admit evidence of uncharged sexual offenses for abuse of discretion. (People v. Nguyen, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 1116.) We will not disturb the ruling unless the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner. (Ibid.)

Page 12