What is the test for admitting evidence that a defendant committed crimes other than those for which he is on trial?

"Evidence that a defendant committed crimes other than those for which he is on trial is admissible when it is logically, naturally, and by some reasonable inference relevant to prove some fact at issue, such as motive, intent, preparation or identity. [Citation.] The trial court judge has the discretion to admit such evidence after weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect." (People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 856; seePeople v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 146.)

"[T]he flight of a person after the commission of a crime, while not of itself sufficient to establish guilt or to raise a presumption of guilt, is a circumstance to be considered by the jury in connection with all the other facts and circumstances in the case as tending in some degree to prove the consciousness of guilt, and evidence thereof is admissible, not as part of the res gestae, but as indicative of a guilty mind. It is permissible, in proof of the fact of flight, to show all of the facts and circumstances attending the flight either to increase or decrease, as the case may be, the probative force of the fact of flight. In other words, when testimony as to flight is resorted to, it is proper to show the extent of the flight and the circumstances thereof, including the acts and doings of the defendant, which tend to characterize and increase its significance." (People v. Hall (1926) 199 Cal. 451, 460.)