A court should consider evidence of previous incidents as necessary in evaluating subsequently charged acts of domestic violence. This section does not abrogate the standard set forth in People v. Garner, 806 P.2d 366 (Colo. 1991), that the prosecution has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior acts actually occurred. This section does not require, however, that the court hold an evidentiary hearing on an offer of proof. People v. Ma, 104 P.3d 273 (Colo. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 121 P.3d 205 (Colo. 2005).

Court applies People v. Spoto (795 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1990)) test in determining admissibility of prior acts and this section does not limit admissibility of evidence of other acts to married partners. People v. Raglin, 21 P.3d 419 (Colo. App. 2000).

Evidence of prior transaction properly admitted. People v. Ramirez, 18 P.3d 822 (Colo. App. 2000).

Evidence of a prior act of domestic violence may be relevant to prove an intent to harm the victim, rather than to frighten him or her. People v. Torres, 141 P.3d 931 (Colo. App. 2006).

Trial court's failure to give contemporaneous limiting instructions in connection with testimony about two prior instances of domestic violence did not cast a serious doubt on the reliability of defendant's conviction and, thus, was not plain error. Although the trial court did not give the limiting instruction during the testimony of two witnesses, it alleviated any potential prejudice by (1) giving the instruction during the testimony of a third witness; (2) stating, at that time, that the instruction applied not only to the testimony of that witness but also to the testimony of the other two witnesses; and (3) providing the jury with a written instruction at the close of the evidence explicitly reminding them that the testimony of the three witnesses had been admitted only for a limited purpose. People v. Moore, 117 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2004).