California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Tapia, 25 Cal.App.4th 984, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 (Cal. App. 1994):
When the evidence of an uncharged offense "is introduced to prove intent, the prosecution need not show the same quantum of 'similarity' as when the uncharged conduct is used to prove identity." (People v. Robbins (1988) 45 Cal.3d 867, 880, 248 Cal.Rptr. 172, 755 P.2d 355.) Only substantial similarity is required. (Ibid.) Here, the similarities between the uncharged robbery and the charged offenses are numerous and substantial. The prosecutor aptly described the "striking similarities between these two plans" below:
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.