What is the test for admitting evidence of a defendant's use of drugs at trial?

"This testimony tended `only remotely' to prove that appellant had committed the attempted robbery of money from the 7-Eleven store. In addition, the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the inflammatory effect of the testimony on the jury. Hence, admission of the testimony concerning appellant's use of narcotics was improper." (People v. Cardenas, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 907.)

People v. Reid (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 354, 363, instructs: "The fact that appellant used drugs, without more [proof of the price of a defendant's habit], does not have a tendency to prove a motive for robbery. The prosecution's failure to establish these matters [cost of defendant's habit or use], coupled with the fact that other crimes evidence involving the use of narcotics presents a grave danger of improperly influencing the jury, establishes that the evidence should have been excluded. [Citation.]"

"Narcotics use must have a direct probative value to establish motive before its admission is permitted." (People v. Felix (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1393.) In Felix, the direct connection was established by defendant's own statement that he burglarized his sister's home in order to get money to buy drugs.