Can a defendant be charged with assault with a firearm with intent?

Even where prior acts evidence is not excludable under Evidence Code section 1101, "the admission of such evidence ' " 'must not contravene other policies limiting admission, such as those contained in Evidence Code section 352.' " ' [Citations.] Under Evidence Code section 352, the probative value of a defendant's prior acts must not be substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission would create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." (People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 602.) " 'We review for abuse of discretion a trial

Page 8

court's rulings on relevance and admission or exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code sections 1101 and 352.' " (Ibid.)

Here, defendant was charged with assault with a firearm, which does not have a specific intent requirement. (People v. Golde (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 101, 108-109 [" 'Because the offensive or dangerous character of the defendant's conduct, by virtue of its nature, contemplates such injury, a general criminal intent to commit the act suffices to establish the requisite mental state' "].) Defendant was also charged with making a criminal threat, which "does not require an intent to actually carry out the threatened crime. [Citation.] Instead, the defendant must intend for the victim to receive and understand the threat, and the threat must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety." (People v. Wilson (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 789, 806.) Assuming defendant committed the charged acts, there was little evidence required of his intent because the acts themselvespointing a gun at the victim and threatening to "blow [his] fucking brains out"had a strong tendency to establish the requisite intent. That defendant had committed a similar act in the past would thus have only marginal value as to his intent. Moreover, the prior conviction would not make it more or less likely the gun defendant used in the charged crime was a replica unless the conviction was offered for an impermissible propensity purpose; in other words, to show defendant was using a replica firearm in this particular instance because he had previously used a replica firearm in similar circumstances.