Is the Due Process Clause violated when a jury at a sex crimes trial is instructed that evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct "is admissible and may be considered to prove that the defendant had the propensity or a tendency to engage in the type of criminal sexual behavior with which he is charged," even though the alleged act of uncharged sexual misconduct—which provides the sole basis for the "propensity" instruction—does not have to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

Is the Due Process Clause violated when a jury is instructed that evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct is admissible to prove propensity, even though the alleged uncharged act does not have to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence?