California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Canizalez, B218515 (Cal. App. 2011):
Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) expressly carves out an exception to this rule.10 It provides that such evidence is admissible if it is relevant to an issue other than disposition to commit the act. Admissibility of other misconduct evidence depends upon (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crime to prove those facts, and (3) any policy requiring exclusion, such as Evidence Code section 352. (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 378-379; see also People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 404.)
A "plea of not guilty puts in issue every material allegation of the accusatory pleading, except those allegations regarding previous convictions of the defendant to which an answer is required by Section 1025." ( 1019; see People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1243 [guilty plea to charged murder "put in issue all of the elements of the offenses"].) In order to prove implied-malice murder, as discussed in part I, ante, the prosecution must prove that appellants acted in conscious disregard for the risk to the safety of others, that is, the defendant must be subjectively aware of that risk.
"In ascertaining whether evidence of other crimes has a tendency to prove the material fact, the court must first determine whether or not the uncharged offense serves "'logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference'" to establish that fact. [Citations.] The court 'must look behind the label describing the kind of similarity or relation between the [uncharged] offense and the charged offense. . . .'" (People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 316.)