What is the test for establishing a common scheme or plan?

(People v. Jones, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 930.) These patterns and characteristics, however, must be very unusual and distinctive. (Ibid.) To establish intent, the prior conduct and the charged offense must be sufficiently similar to support an inference the defendant likely harbored the same intent on both occasions. (People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 602.) "To be admissible to show a common scheme or plan, a greater degree of similarity is required than to show intent, and 'the common features must indicate the existence of a plan rather than a series of similar spontaneous acts, but the plan thus revealed need not be distinctive or unusual.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

Finally, habit or custom evidence "is admissible to prove conduct on a specified occasion in conformity with the habit or custom." (Evid. Code, 1105.) Evidence of a custom or habit "involves a consistent, semiautomatic response to a repeated situation." (Bowen v. Ryan (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 916, 926.)