Is a prosecutor permitted to introduce evidence concerning a defendant's uncharged conduct in order to prove his character or propensity to commit a crime?

Generally, public policy prohibits a prosecutor from introducing evidence concerning a defendant's uncharged conduct or offenses in order to prove a defendant's character or propensity to commit a crime. (People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 285, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 385, 303 P.3d 1163.) "Except as provided ..., evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion." (Evid. Code, 1101.) The purpose of this evidentiary rule "is to assure that a defendant is tried upon the crime charged and is not tried upon an antisocial history." (People v. Aeschlimann (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 460, 473, 104 Cal.Rptr. 689.)

However, a well-established exception to the general rule is that a defendant's uncharged conduct may be admitted " not to prove a person's predisposition to commit such an act, but rather to prove some other material fact, such as that person's intent or identity. " (People v. Rocha (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1393, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 190.) "Nothing in this section prohibits the admission of evidence that a person committed a crime, civil wrong, or other act when relevant to prove some fact (such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence

[214 Cal.Rptr.3d 477]