What is the test for admitting evidence that defendant possessed methamphetamine and heroin for sale when he was charged only with possession?

Defendant also claims the trial court erred in admitting evidence that defendant possessed the methamphetamine and heroin for sale when he was charged only with possession. Specifically, defendant claims the evidence is improper evidence of "other crimes" under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), and that any probative value of the evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial impact on the jury under Evidence Code section 352. Defendant objected to this testimony at trial, but failed to state on the record, the basis for his objection and the court did not specify the basis for its ruling. Defendant is, therefore, limited on appeal to arguing the testimony was irrelevant. (See People v. Riggs (2008) 44 Cal.4th 248, 289 [trial court lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence].)

To convict defendant of possession, the prosecution was required to prove: (1) defendant exercised control over or the right to control an amount of a controlled substance; (2) defendant knew of its presence; (3) defendant knew of its nature as a controlled substance; and (4) the substance was in an amount usable for consumption. (People v. Tripp (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 951, 956.)