There is no material difference between CALJIC 2.50.02 and CALCRIM No. 852. Appellant contended that the trial court violated his right to due process by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 852, claiming that the instruction allowed the jury to find him guilty of the charged offenses solely upon finding true by a preponderance of the evidence uncharged offenses. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that there was no material difference between the language found constitutional in CALJIC No. 2.50.02 and in CALCRIM No. 852. In fact, CALCRIM No. 852 goes further than CALJIC No. 2.50.02 with a clarification that worked to appellant’s benefit. Accordingly, there was no due process violation.