What is the test for admitting evidence of uncharged misconduct in a criminal case?

"[T]o be admissible to prove intent, the uncharged misconduct must be sufficiently similar to support the inference that the defendant ' "probably harbored[ed] the same intent in each instance." [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 402.) " '[T]he recurrence of a similar result . . . tends (increasingly with each instance) to negative accident or inadvertence or self-defense or good faith or other innocent mental state, and tends to establish . . . the presence of the normal, i.e., criminal, intent accompanying such an act . . . .' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

Our state courts " 'have long recognized "that if a person acts similarly in similar situations, he probably harbors the sane intent in each instance" [citations], and that such prior conduct may be relevant circumstantial evidence of the actor's most recent intent. The inference to be drawn is not that the actor is disposed to commit such acts; instead, the inference to be drawn is that, in light of the first event, the actor, at the time of the second event, must have had the intent attributed to him by the prosecution.' " (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 261. Thus, to be admissible to prove intent, uncharged conduct must be " 'roughly similar' " to the charged conduct. (People v. Rocha (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1394-1395.)

" 'If evidence of prior conduct is sufficiently similar to the charged crimes to be relevant to prove the defendant's intent . . . the trial court then must consider whether the probative value of the evidence "is 'substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission [would] . . . create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." (Evid. Code, 352.)' " (People v. Rogers (2013) 57 Cal.4th 296, 326.) We review a trial court's rulings admitting evidence under Evidence

Page 18