P.

DISCUSSION

I The Court Did Not Err In Admitting The Prior Act Of Domestic Violence Involving Defendant’s Ex-Wife Defendant contends the court violated his federal and state due process right to a fair trial by admitting evidence of the prior act involving his ex-wife because the incident was remote, cumulative, and unrelated to the current crimes and the court did not properly weigh the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect. When the court admitted the prior act evidence related to defendant’s ex-wife, it noted the following: Initially, the parties had discussed admitting the evidence when the People thought S. was going to be a recanting witness. In that context, the prior-act evidence related to the ex-wife “was in the interest of justice because the only other [domestic violence] witness was [S.]” In fact, S.’s testimony ended up conceding many of the incidents she had originally reported to police. In light of S.’s testimony, “the interest of justice may still be served, but it seem[ed] like a far more limited argument.” The People then noted that because of “how the case ha[d] changed,” “the People stopped questioning [the ex-wife] about further…