Did the California Court of Appeal err when it concluded that inflammatory propensity evidence, pervasively used and erroneously admitted in the petitioner's criminal trial, did not render the trial fundamentally unfair by violating petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment right of due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

Did the California Court of Appeal err in concluding that inflammatory-propensity-evidence,pervasively-used,erroneously-admitted did not render the trial fundamentally-unfair,violating-due-process