CALCRIM No. 1191, permitting the jury to conclude from the prior rape evidence that appellant was predisposed to commit sexual offenses, does not violate appellant’s due process rights. Appellant was convicted of six counts of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) against two separate victims. The jury also found true the allegation that the offenses were committed against more than one victim and the court found a prior rape conviction allegation true. At trial evidence of a rape defendant committed in 1993 was permitted and the jury was instructed as to this evidence per CALCRIM 1191. There is no material difference in the language of CALCRIM No. 1191 from that of CALJIC No. 2.50.01. In People v. Reliford (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1007, the Supreme Court considered the CALJIC instruction and rejected a claim of due process violation. Further, the prior rape of a developmentally disabled woman was sufficiently similar to the molests of the young boys in the instant offense to logically tend to prove he committed the instant sexual offense.