existence of any rule in California

2025Code, § 1101, subd. (b); People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380 , 402–403 (Ewoldt).) “When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant.” (People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 856 .) “As long as there is a direct relationship between the prior offense and an element of the charged offense, introduction of that evidence is pr

2021Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) The Supreme Court has identified three factors essential to the admissibility of such other-act evidence (sometimes referred to as evidence of an uncharged act or an uncharged crime): “(1) the materiality of the fact sought to be proved or disproved; (2) the tendency of the uncharged crime to prove or disprove the material fact; and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring the exclusion of relevant evidence.” (People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 315 (Thompson), superseded on other grounds as stated in Clark v. Brown (9th Cir. 2006) 442 F.3d 708, 714, fn.

2026(See Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 405 .) Under that standard, “ ‘ “[a] trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal of the judgment is not required, unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” ’ ” (People v. Thomas (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 924 , 970.) When section 1101(b) is read together with section 352, the admissibility of uncharged-acts evidence turns on three considerations: “ ‘(1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged cr

2025Code, § 1101, subd. (b); People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380 , 402–403 (Ewoldt).) “When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant.” (People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 856 .) “As long as there is a direct relationship between the prior offense and an element of the charged offense, introduction of that evidence is pr

2025Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) “[T]he admissibility of uncharged crimes depends upon three factors: (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved; (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove or disprove the material fact [i.e., probative value]; and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring the exclusion of relevant evidence [i.e., prejudicial effect or other § 352 concern].” (People v. Hendrix (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 216, 238 .) “In order to satisfy the requirement of materiality, the fact sought to be proved or disproved must be either an ultimate fact or an intermediate fact

2025Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) “[T]he admissibility of uncharged crimes depends upon three factors: (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved; (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove or disprove the material fact [i.e., probative value]; and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring the exclusion of relevant evidence [i.e., prejudicial effect or other § 352 concern].” (People v. Hendrix (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 216, 238 .) “In order to satisfy the requirement of materiality, the fact sought to be proved or disproved must be either an ultimate fact or an intermediate fact

2026Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) “When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant.” (People v. Daniels, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 856 .) This includes an assessment under Evidence Code section 352 of whether the probative value of the uncharged misconduct evidence “is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will

2026Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) “When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant.” (People v. Daniels, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 856 .) This includes an assessment under Evidence Code section 352 of whether the probative value of the uncharged misconduct evidence “is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will

2026Code, § 1101, subd. (a).)1 But such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some fact other than the defendant’s disposition to commit the charged crime, such as motive. (§ 1101, subd. (b); People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 602 .) Admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on “ ‘(1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant.’ ” (People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 667 .) We review the

2021Law Applicable to Admissibility of Uncharged Prior Offenses “‘Evidence that a defendant committed crimes other than those for which he is on trial is admissible when it is logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference relevant to prove some fact at issue, such as motive, intent, preparation or identity. [Citations.] The trial court judge has the discretion to admit such evidence after weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect. [Citation.] When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disp

2021Code, §1101, subds. (a), (b).) Admission depends on “ ‘(1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those facts, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion of the evidence.’ ” (People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763, 783 .) A jury may consider evidence of a person’s conduct admitted under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) if the conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

2021Code, §1101, subds. (a), (b).) Admission depends on “ ‘(1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those facts, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion of the evidence.’ ” (People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763, 783 .) A jury may consider evidence of a person’s conduct admitted under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) if the conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

2021“In proving intent, the act is conceded or assumed; what is sought is the state of mind that accompanied it.” ’ ” (People v. Ghebretensae (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 741, 754 .) “To be relevant, an uncharged offense must tend logically, naturally and by reasonable inference to prove the issue(s) on which it is offered.” (People v. Robbins (1988) 45 Cal.3d 867, 879 .) “ ‘ “When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (

2016Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) The admissibility of uncharged acts " 'depends upon three principal factors: (1) the materiality of the fact sought to be proved or disproved; (2) the tendency of the uncharged crime to prove or disprove the material fact; and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring the exclusion of relevant evidence.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Robbins (1988) 45 Cal.3d 867 , 879, 248 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 755 P.2d 355 ; see *785 People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763 , 783, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 531 , 171 P.3d 548 .) Whether a trial court has erred in admitting evidence under Evidence Code

2022“Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a) generally prohibits the admission of evidence of a prior criminal act against a criminal defendant ‘when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.’ Subdivision (b) of that section, however, provides that such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some fact in issue, such as motive, intent, knowledge, identity, or the existence of a common design or plan. [¶] ‘The admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those fa

2015Code, § 1101.) Evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible to prove identity, common design or plan, or intent only if the charged and uncharged crimes are sufficiently similar to support a rational inference of identity, common design or plan, or intent.’ ” (People v. Foster, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1328.) “ ‘The admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those facts, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion of the evidence.’ ” (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.

2015Code, § 1101.) Evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible to prove identity, common design or plan, or intent only if the charged and uncharged crimes are sufficiently similar to support a rational inference of identity, common design or plan, or intent.’ ” (People v. Foster, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1328.) “ ‘The admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those facts, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion of the evidence.’ ” (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.

2015Code, § 1101.) Evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible to prove identity, common design or plan, or intent only if the charged and uncharged crimes are sufficiently similar to support a rational inference of identity, common design or plan, or intent.’ ” (People v. Foster, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1328.) “ ‘The admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those facts, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion of the evidence.’ ” (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.

2026(See Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 405 .) Under that standard, “ ‘ “[a] trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal of the judgment is not required, unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” ’ ” (People v. Thomas (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 924 , 970.) When section 1101(b) is read together with section 352, the admissibility of uncharged-acts evidence turns on three considerations: “ ‘(1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged cr

2025A lesser degree of similarity is required to establish the existence of a common plan or scheme and still less similarity is required to establish intent.” (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 23 .) Ultimately, “‘[t]he admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those facts, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion of the evidence,’” including whether the evidence is subject to exclusion under section 352 as more prejudicial than probative.

2016Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) The admissibility of uncharged acts " 'depends upon three principal factors: (1) the materiality of the fact sought to be proved or disproved; (2) the tendency of the uncharged crime to prove or disprove the material fact; and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring the exclusion of relevant evidence.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Robbins (1988) 45 Cal.3d 867 , 879, 248 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 755 P.2d 355 ; see *785 People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763 , 783, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 531 , 171 P.3d 548 .) Whether a trial court has erred in admitting evidence under Evidence Code

2016Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) The admissibility of uncharged acts " 'depends upon three principal factors: (1) the materiality of the fact sought to be proved or disproved; (2) the tendency of the uncharged crime to prove or disprove the material fact; and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring the exclusion of relevant evidence.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Robbins (1988) 45 Cal.3d 867 , 879, 248 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 755 P.2d 355 ; see *785 People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763 , 783, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 531 , 171 P.3d 548 .) Whether a trial court has erred in admitting evidence under Evidence Code

2005(People v. DeRango (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 583, 589 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 429 ], citing People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 40 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 664 , 528 P.2d 752 ].) When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant.

2005(People v. DeRango (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 583, 589 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 429 ], citing People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 40 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 664 , 528 P.2d 752 ].) When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant.

2019(Ibid.) 7 The California Supreme Court has explained “that ‘[t]he admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those facts, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion of the evidence.’ (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 378-379 .) The main policy that may require exclusion of the evidence is the familiar one stated in Evidence Code section 352: Evidence may be excluded if its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.

2016(People v. Demetrulias (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1, 14 .) It may be admissible, however, where relevant to prove a material fact at issue, for example, motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge or identity. (§ 1101, subd. (b).) “The admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality of the facts 5 Eight ball is a slang term used to describe at least three grams of methamphetamine. 4 sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those facts, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion of the evidence.” (People v. Carpenter

2025(People v. Lindberg, 8 supra, at p. 23 ; See People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 426 [trial court must still evaluate evidence for admissibility under Evidence Code section 352 after finding it admissible under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a)].) These principles are reflected in CALCRIM No. 375.

2015(People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 202 (Gray).) Such evidence is admissible, however, to establish a fact such as motive, intent, identity, preparation, absence of mistake or accident, or that the defendant acted toward a common design or plan. (§ 1101, subd. (b); Branch, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 280 ; see People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 422-424 .) The admissibility of other-crimes evidence depends on the materiality of the fact sought to be proved or disproved, the tendency of the uncharged crime to prove or disprove the material fact, and the existence of any rule or policy req

2022(People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 452 ; People v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, 597-598 (Leon).) We review the trial court’s admission of evidence under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) for abuse of discretion.

2021(People v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, 597 .) Consistent with Evidence Code section 352, “[t]he probative value of the uncharged offense evidence must be substantial and must not be largely outweighed by the probability that its admission would create a serious danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of 28 misleading the jury.” (People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 371 .) We review trial court rulings admitting this evidence for an abuse of discretion.

2021Law Applicable to Admissibility of Uncharged Prior Offenses “‘Evidence that a defendant committed crimes other than those for which he is on trial is admissible when it is logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference relevant to prove some fact at issue, such as motive, intent, preparation or identity. [Citations.] The trial court judge has the discretion to admit such evidence after weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect. [Citation.] When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disp

2021Law Applicable to Admissibility of Uncharged Prior Offenses “‘Evidence that a defendant committed crimes other than those for which he is on trial is admissible when it is logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference relevant to prove some fact at issue, such as motive, intent, preparation or identity. [Citations.] The trial court judge has the discretion to admit such evidence after weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect. [Citation.] When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disp

2026Code, § 352, see People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 637 .) Because this type of evidence can be so damaging, “ ‘[i]f the connection between the uncharged offense and the ultimate fact in dispute is not clear, the evidence should be excluded.’ ” (Daniels, at p. 856.) In other words, “uncharged offenses are admissible only if they have substantial probative value.” (People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 318 .) “We review for abuse of discretion a trial court’s rulings on relevance and admission or exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code sections 1101 and 352.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33

2014“Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a) generally prohibits the admission of evidence of a prior criminal act against a criminal defendant ‘when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.’ Subdivision (b) of that section, however, provides that such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some fact in issue, such as motive, intent, knowledge, identity, or the existence of a common design or plan. “ ‘The admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those fact

2026Code, § 1101, subd. (a).)1 But such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some fact other than the defendant’s disposition to commit the charged crime, such as motive. (§ 1101, subd. (b); People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 602 .) Admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on “ ‘(1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant.’ ” (People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 667 .) We review the

2021“In proving intent, the act is conceded or assumed; what is sought is the state of mind that accompanied it.” ’ ” (People v. Ghebretensae (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 741, 754 .) “To be relevant, an uncharged offense must tend logically, naturally and by reasonable inference to prove the issue(s) on which it is offered.” (People v. Robbins (1988) 45 Cal.3d 867, 879 .) “ ‘ “When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (

2025Code, § 1101, subd. (b); see also People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 393 (Ewoldt).) “ ‘When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant.’ ” (Fuiava, at p. 667; accord, Johnson, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 610 .) Various degrees of similarity are required for a trial court to admit evidence pursuant to subdivision (b) of Evide

2025Code, § 1101, subd. (b); see also People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 393 (Ewoldt).) “ ‘When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant.’ ” (Fuiava, at p. 667; accord, Johnson, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 610 .) Various degrees of similarity are required for a trial court to admit evidence pursuant to subdivision (b) of Evide

2025Randall also argues that the district attorney failed to show any “motive nexus between the attempted robbery … and Perkins’s murder.” We disagree. “ ‘When reviewing the admission of other crimes evidence to show motive, “ ‘a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 358.) Unlike intent, “the probativeness of other-crimes eviden

2024In order to be admissible to prove intent, the uncharged misconduct must be sufficiently similar to support the inference that the defendant ‘ “probably harbor[ed] the same intent in each instance.” ’ ” (People v. Ewolt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 402 .) Similarly, other crimes evidence is admissible to show motive when “ ‘[b]oth crimes are explainable as a result of the same motive.’ ” (Spector, at p. 1381, italics omitted; see People v. Demetrulias (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1, 15 .) “When reviewing the admission of other crimes evidence to show motive, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fac

2025(People v. Scheer (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1020 .) Evidence of a defendant’s uncharged misconduct is relevant if it is sufficiently similar to the charged offense to support a rational inference of a common design or plan.

2023(People v. Scheer (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1020 .) Evidence of a defendant’s uncharged misconduct is relevant if it is sufficiently similar to the charged offense to support a rational inference of a common design or plan.

2022“Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a) generally prohibits the admission of evidence of a prior criminal act against a criminal defendant ‘when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.’ Subdivision (b) of that section, however, provides that such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some fact in issue, such as motive, intent, knowledge, identity, or the existence of a common design or plan. [¶] ‘The admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those fa

2022But Dhaliwal’s trial defense does not define the scope of the prosecution’s burden of proof. “[A] defendant’s plea of not guilty puts in issue all the elements of the charged offense.” (Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 204 .) “[T]he prosecution’s burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant’s tactical decision not to contest an essential element of the offense.” (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 69 .) Accordingly, the nature of Dhaliwal’s trial defense did not eliminate the materiality of the prior act evidence on the intent element of the driving or takin

2021(See Carrasco, supra, 164 Cal.App.3d at p. 808 ; Leo v. Dunlap (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 24, 27-28 .) Based on the policies underlying the rule, “the test for what is and is not a [material or] ‘substantive change’ should focus on whether the [change] might give rise to any different amount or form of liability, or indicate the existence of any defense or ground for avoiding liability, not reasonably disclosed in the original complaint.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 6:701, italics added; see Engebretson, supra, 125 Cal.App.3d at pp. 442

2021(See Carrasco, supra, 164 Cal.App.3d at p. 808 ; Leo v. Dunlap (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 24, 27-28 .) Based on the policies underlying the rule, “the test for what is and is not a [material or] ‘substantive change’ should focus on whether the [change] might give rise to any different amount or form of liability, or indicate the existence of any defense or ground for avoiding liability, not reasonably disclosed in the original complaint.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 6:701, italics added; see Engebretson, supra, 125 Cal.App.3d at pp. 442

2020(Ibid.) “Courts subject other crimes evidence to ‘ “extremely careful analysis.” ’ ” (Ibid., quoting, Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 404 .) “[O]ther crimes evidence need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence.” (People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1245, fn. 2 (Steele).) And as defendant acknowledges, his plea of not guilty put all elements of the charged offense at issue.

2014“As a general rule, evidence the defendant has committed crimes other than those for which he is on trial is inadmissible to prove bad character, predisposition to criminality, or the defendant's conduct on a specific occasion. [Citation.] However, . . . section 1101, subdivision (b), permits evidence of a defendant's past criminal acts when relevant to prove a material fact at issue, such as identity, motive, or knowledge. [Citations.]” (People v. Williams (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 587, 607 .) 10. “‘The admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality of the facts sought to

2013(People v. Spector, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1381 .) More generally, “‘[t]he admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those facts, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion of the evidence.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Lindberg, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 22 .) Thus, even if other crimes evidence is relevant to prove a fact other than criminal propensity, it must be excluded under section 352 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability it

2013Code, § 1101, subd. (b);9 People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1147 ; People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 400 ; People v. Spector (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1335, 1374 .) When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crimes evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant.

2014(People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 23 ; People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 402 .) The admissibility of other-crimes evidence also depends on three principal factors: “(1) the materiality of the fact sought to be proved or disproved; (2) the tendency of the uncharged crime to prove or disprove the material fact; and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring the exclusion of relevant evidence, e.g., Evidence Code section 352. [Citations.]” (People v. Sully (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1195, 1224 .) The evidence of uncharged misconduct in the instant case included evidence relating to defen

1993Code, §1101, subd. (b).) Nonetheless, “because other-crimes evidence is so inherently prejudicial, its relevancy is to be ‘examined with care.’ It is to be received with ‘extreme caution,’ and all doubts about its connection to the crime charged must be resolved in the accused’s favor. [Citations.]” (People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 631 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 775 , 685 P.2d 1126 ].) “The admissibility of other-crimes evidence depends on three principal factors: (1) the materiality of the fact sought to be proved or disproved; (2) the tendency of the uncharged crime to prove or disprove the mate