Does the trial court abuse its discretion not to consider a video of a jailhouse altercation as evidence of an uncharged offense?

Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in concluding the probative value of the jailhouse altercation was not outweighed by the substantial danger of undue prejudice. The video, reasonably construed, showed defendant, when angered, attacks the person who has angered him swiftly and brutally with his bare hands. In addition, it was relevant to show how defendant took steps to clean up his victim's blood upon completion of his attack. Juror confusion was unlikely given the trial court's instruction that the uncharged offense could be considered only for the limited purpose of proving "whether or not: [] . . . defendant had a plan or scheme to commit the offenses alleged in this case[.] [] . . . [] Do not consider this evidence for any other purpose except for the limited purpose of determining the defendant's credibility. [] Do not conclude from this evidence that [he] has a bad character or is disposed to commit crime. . . ." Although this evidence may have been prejudicial to defendant, it was the ordinary sort of prejudice that arises from any evidence tending to show guilt. (People v. Karis, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 638.)