Is evidence of past conduct admissible to prove a defendant's intent to commit a crime?

5 Of course, while evidence of past acts is not admissible to prove "conduct on a specified occasion" (Evid.Code, 1101, subd. (a)), it is admissible to prove a disputed fact other than one's propensity to commit a crime, such as intent. (Evid.Code, 1101, subd. (b).) Further, it is clear a police officer may consider such past acts when determining whether reasonable cause to arrest exists. (See, e.g., People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 692 & fn. 5, 108 Cal.Rptr. 809, 511 P.2d 1161, cert. den. 414 U.S. 1113, 94 S.Ct. 844, 38 L.Ed.2d 740.)

6 This distinction was recognized in People v. Smith (1978) 44 N.Y.2d 613, 407 N.Y.S.2d 462, 466, 378 N.E.2d 1032, involving the state of New York's statutory prohibition of loitering for the purpose of prostitution: "It might be true, as defendant claims, that in rare instances unless an officer has a basis for his belief of what is actually transpiring, based on items other than his mere observations, there would be no probable cause to make an arrest. There is also a remote possibility that a person involved in innocent conversation, such as a pollster or one seeking directions, might be arrested, but that is not envisioned by the statute and the mere fact that an officer in a particular case did not have probable cause to arrest that defendant would not warrant invalidation of the statute." ( Id. at p. 621, 407 N.Y.S.2d at p. 467, 378 N.E.2d at p. 1036-37.)