What is the test for admissible evidence in a criminal case where a defendant has pleaded not guilty to a similar crime?

"As Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) recognizes, that a defendant previously committed a similar crime can be circumstantial evidence tending to prove his identity, intent, and motive in the present crime. Like other circumstantial evidence, admissibility depends on the materiality of the fact sought to be proved, the tendency of the prior crime to prove the material fact, and the existence vel non of some other rule requiring exclusion." (People v. Roldan, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 705.) Here, defendant placed all issues in dispute by pleading not guilty, thus rendering the evidence material.

"'The least degree of similarity (between the uncharged act and the charged offense) is required in order to prove intent.' [Citation.] The more often a similar result occurs, the less likely it is the defendant acted inadvertently or in selfdefense. Consequently, 'to be admissible to prove intent, the uncharged misconduct must be sufficiently similar to support the inference that the defendant "'probably harbor[ed] the same intent in each instance.'"'" (People v. Walker (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 782, 803.)