What is the test for admitting evidence of sexual assault in a criminal case?

The trial judge has "wide discretion" in deciding the relevancy of evidence. (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 523, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677, 822 P.2d 385.)

Evidence that a person committed a crime or other wrong is admissible when it logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference is relevant to show some fact at issue, such as motive, and intent, other than the person's disposition to commit such acts. (People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 856, 277 Cal.Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906; Evid.Code, 1101.) "The trial court judge has the discretion to admit such evidence after weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect. When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider: (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence is relevant." (Id. at p. 856, 277 Cal.Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906, citations omitted; People v. Felix (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 997, 1004, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 113.)