What is the test for admitting evidence in a personal injury case?

Based on the legal principles set forth above and in light of the record as a whole, we find no basis for disturbing the trial court's decision. As the trial court aptly noted, regardless of certain differences between the past and present theft incidents, such as the fact that the previous incident was nonviolent, the incidents were nonetheless similar in key regards - mainly, both incidents involved defendants jointly engaged in theft crimes in the East Bay in the early morning hours. As such, the trial court could reasonably find the probative value of this evidence with respect to the important issue of defendants' shared intent substantially outweighed its potential prejudicial impact. In addition, the trial court substantially lessened any potential prejudice by clearly and correctly instructing the jury that their consideration of this evidence was restricted to the sole issue of defendants' shared intent. (See People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 402-403 [the least degree of similarity is required to establish relevance on the issue of intent].) Under these circumstances, the lower court's ruling stands as a proper exercise of its broad discretion to admit evidence.