What is the test for admissible evidence of a defendant's criminal past?

"The rules governing the admissibility of evidence under Evidence Code section 1101[, subdivision] (b)[,] are well settled. Evidence of defendant's commission of other crimes, civil wrongs or bad acts is not admissible to show bad character or predisposition to criminality, but may be admitted to prove some material fact at issue such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident. [Citations.] Because evidence of a defendant's commission of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts '"may be highly inflammatory, its admissibility should be scrutinized with great care."' [Citation.]" (People v. Cage (2015) 62 Cal.4th 256, 273, italics added (Cage).)

"To be admissible, there must be some degree of similarity between the charged crime and the other crime, but the degree of similarity depends on the purpose for which the evidence was presented. The least degree of similarity is needed when, as here, the evidence is offered to prove intent. [Citation.]" (People v. Jones (2011) 51 Cal.4th 346, 371.) Intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake or accident are closely intertwined. (See People v. Hendrix (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 216, 242-243 (Hendrix).) "We review the trial court's ruling for an abuse of discretion. [Citations.]" (Cage, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 274.)