having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Utah R. Evid. 401. Evidence is admissible if it tends to prove some fact that is material to the crime charged — other than the defendant’s propensity to commit crime. See Decorso, 1999 UT 57 at ¶ 22, 993 P.2d 837. ¶ 27 In this case, the trial court ruled that the acts committed against J.B. were “easily relevant” under rule 402. Because the prior sexual acts against J.B. would assist the trier of fact in determining whether Bradley held the requisite intent to “arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,” the evidence is relevant. See State v. Wilhelm, 168 Or.App. 489, 3 P.3d 715, 717 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Because J.B.’s testimony that Bradley
holding that intent is a separate element and evidence relating to intent is irrelevant to determining whether an object is a criminal instrument holding that voluntary intoxication is a defense to a charge of assault and battery with intent to gratify sexual desires holding that attempted sexual abuse is a specific intent crime holding evidence of intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire is relevant where it is an element of the crime charged holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime