Explain the Court of Appeals' holding that propensity to be untruthful can be demonstrated, if the D pleaded not guilty to the earlier offence but was convicted following a trial at which his account was disbelieved under Hanson [2005].

The Court of Appeals' holding in Hanson (2005) establishes that the propensity to be untruthful can be demonstrated when a defendant has pleaded not guilty to a previous offense but was ultimately convicted following a trial where their account or testimony was disbelieved. This holding recognizes that a person's credibility and propensity for dishonesty can be relevant in a subsequent trial. If the defendant's previous trial involved a similar situation where they denied their involvement or provided an account that was found to be false or lacking credibility, it can be argued that this demonstrates a pattern of behavior indicating a propensity to be untruthful. The rationale behind this holding is that the trier of fact, whether it be the judge or jury, should have access to all relevant evidence when assessing the credibility and reliability of the defendant's testimony. By admitting evidence of the previous conviction where the defendant's account was disbelieved, the court allows the trier of fact to consider whether the defendant's current denial or defense is also lacking credibility. It is important to note that the admissibility of such evidence is subject to the rules of evidence and the discretion of the trial judge. The judge will consider factors such as the probative value of the evidence, the potential prejudice to the defendant, and whether its admission is in the interests of justice. The decision to admit or exclude such evidence will depend on the specific circumstances of each case.