The Court held that intent is automatically at issue for specific-intent crimes. Therefore, criminal defendants need not place intent or absence of mistake at issue before the State seeks to admit prior act evidence if the evidence is relevant to prove an essential element of the offense (i.e., intent for the crime of burglary). However, prior act evidence may still be inadmissible where its minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
McKissick, Matthew J., "Hubbard (Cory) v. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Aug. 2, 2018) (en banc)" (2018). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1182.