What is the test for a not guilty plea in a criminal case involving an uncharged crime?

The uncharged crime or act must share sufficiently similar features to the charged offense to support a rational inference of identity, a common plan, or intent. (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 402-403.) The requisite degree of similarity varies according to the purpose of the evidence. To prove identity, for example, the charged and uncharged offenses must display a "'pattern and characteristics... so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.'" (Id. at p. 403.) A common design or plan, in contrast, requires common features "indicating] the existence of a plan rather than a series of similar spontaneous acts, but the plan thus revealed need not be distinctive or unusual." (Ibid.) The least degree of similarity between charged and uncharged crimes is required to establish adequate relevance for admission on the issue of intent. (Id. at p. 402.) The evidence of the uncharged crimes need only be "sufficiently similar [to the charged offenses] to support the inference that the defendant '"probably harbor[ed] the same intent in each instance." [Citations.]'" (Ibid.) A defendant's not guilty plea places all elements of the charged crimes in issue. (Id. at p. 400, fn. 4.)