How is section 1101(b) of the California Evidence Code interpreted by courts in cases involving abuse of discretion?

Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) (1101(b)) provides an exception to the general rule that character evidence is inadmissible to prove a person's conduct on a particular occasion. Under 1101(b), evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible to prove, among other things, a perpetrator's identity if the charged and uncharged crimes are sufficiently similar to support a rational inference the same person committed both acts. (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1328.) For evidence of uncharged crimes to be admitted to show identity, the pattern and characteristics of the uncharged misconduct and the charged offense " 'must be so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.' [Citation.]" (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 403, quoting 1 McCormick on Evidence (4th ed. 1992) 190, pp. 801-803.) " ' "The highly unusual and distinctive nature of both the charged and [uncharged] offenses virtually eliminates the possibility that anyone other than the defendant committed the charged offense." [Citation.]' " (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1003.) We review rulings under section 1101(b) for abuse of discretion. (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 637.)