In People v. Haselman (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1055, the sentence appellant now challenges was read as follows: "'However, if you find by preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a prior sexual -- committed prior sexual offenses, that is not sufficient by itself to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the charged crimes.'" The jury in Haselman was instructed with CALJIC No. 2.50.1 not to consider evidence of the other sexual offenses unless it found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed those offenses. In Haselman, the trial court also added the following paragraph to CALJIC No. 2.50.1: "'However, you may not convict the defendant of any of the charged crimes unless all the evidence presented convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of any of those charged crimes.'" (Haselman, at p. 1062.)