What is the test for admitting evidence of an uncharged crime?

It hardly seems controversial to require, as we did explicitly in People v. Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d 303, 165 Cal.Rptr. 289, 611 P.2d 883, that evidence of an uncharged crime must be relevant to some ultimate fact in issue, either directly or through the drawing of an inference. (Id., at p. 315, & fn. 14, 165 Cal.Rptr. 289, 611 P.2d 883.) We explained: "Evidence of an uncharged offense is usually sought to be admitted as 'evidence that, if found to be true, proves a fact from which an inference of another fact may be drawn.' [Citation.] As with other types of circumstantial evidence, its admissibility depends upon three principal factors: (1) the

Page 664

We continued: "In order to satisfy the requirement of materiality, the fact sought to be proved may be either an ultimate fact in the proceeding or an intermediate fact 'from which such ultimate fact[ ] may be presumed or inferred.' [Citation.] Further, the ultimate fact to be proved must be 'actually in dispute.' " (People v. Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 315, 165 Cal.Rptr. 289, 611 P.2d 883 fns. omitted.)