Is a defendant's motive relevant in a criminal case?

be decided before the prior misconduct can be deemed admissible; if the prior and defendant's connection to it are not established by a preponderance of the evidence, the prior is irrelevant to prove the ... section 1101(b) fact for which it is being offered. [Citations.]" (People v. Garelick (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1115.)

"Motive is always relevant in a criminal prosecution." (People v. Perez (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 760, 767.) "Motive describes the reason a person chooses to commit a crime. The reason, however, is different from a required mental state such as intent or malice." (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 504.) "Motive is an intermediate fact which may be probative of such ultimate issues as intent [citation], identity [citation], or commission of the criminal act itself [citation]." (People v. Scheer (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1017-1018.)