In People v. Lisenba (1939) 14 Cal.2d 403, where the defendant was charged with the murder of his wife, evidence was admitted regarding the death of the defendant's former wife in Colorado under similar circumstances, even though the defendant had apparently never been convicted of the former wife's murder and he claimed her death was accidental. (Id. at pp. 424, 427-428.) The Lisenba court reasoned that the prosecution was not required to prove the asserted Colorado crime beyond a reasonable doubt because "'"the facts regarding the other transactions were simply evidentiary facts introduced for the purpose of being considered, together with all of the other evidence in the case, upon the question of criminal knowledge and intent; and though the jury may have entertained some reasonable doubt as to some of the other transactions, or some of the other items of evidence, which tend to prove guilty knowledge or intent, if, notwithstanding that fact, and having considered the evidentiary facts, doubtful and otherwise, they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the ultimate fact of guilty knowledge and intent, it is sufficient."'" (Id. at p. 430.)