What is the test for admissible evidence in a criminal case?

"All relevant evidence is admissible unless there is a positive rule excluding it. [Citation.] Relevant evidence is that which has 'any tendency in [163 Cal.App.3d 307] reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence....' [Citation.] The test of relevancy is whether the evidence tends, logically, naturally, or by reasonable inference to establish a material fact, not whether it conclusively proves it. [Citation.]" (People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 376, 191 Cal.Rptr. 859.) " '[T]o be admissible, evidence need not absolutely confirm anything. It is axiomatic that its weight is for the jury.' [Citation.]" (People v. Peggese (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 415, 420, 162 Cal.Rptr. 510.) "The trial court is vested with wide discretion in determining relevance.... [p] Furthermore, the fact that this evidence involved another crime does not make it inadmissible per se. As a general rule evidence of uncharged offenses is inadmissible when offered merely to prove a defendant's criminal disposition. [Citations.] [p] 'It is settled that evidence of other crimes is ordinarily admissible despite the prejudicial effect where it tends to establish guilty knowledge, motive, intent or presence of a common design or plan.' [Citations.]" (People v. Yu, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d at p. 376, 191 Cal.Rptr. 859.)