The 1999 version of CALJIC 2.50.01 correctly states the law and is not likely to mislead the jury concerning the limited purpose for which they may consider prior crimes evidence. Evidence that a defendant has committed other sex offenses is relevant to the issue of his propensity for committing those offenses. CALJIC 2.50.01 correctly informs the juror that they may infer from this predisposition that the defendant committed the charged offense, and correctly informs them that evidence of uncharged crimes alone is insufficient proof. J. Kennard dissented, finding the instruction ambiguous and potentially confusing. However, the instruction in this case could not have prejudiced the defendant.